Peace

What would it take to maintain peace for a century?

What would you do for peace and justice?

What's important to you?

Dreams...

I don't normally talk about dreams. Some people read a lot of significance into them, to points where I start to question the validity of their assumptions. I'm careful about that.

In keeping with my notion of experience being the strongest evidence for any individual, I must say, by my experience there are some dreams which clearly have significance. Usually the dreams are for my own understanding and such, so I prefer to keep them private and in confidence - so you won't read much of them.

Recently I've had one such dream. The objective/scientific part of me says it could be a biproduct of some of the issues I'm thinking about lately. The self-directive (read: purposeful) part of me says that's relevant, but to acknowledge the augmented nature of this dream's experience. I actively participated in the dream, as though communicating with others.

(Collective consciousness theories aside, I'm open to the notion that, assuming there to be energetic impulses in the universe that effect our brains' operations - chemically, magnetically, radiologically, etc - a sleep state exposes our mental mechanism to elements we're not consciously aware of while awake.)

So, avoiding detail of the dream (keeping it in confidence), I'll skip to the practical implications...

It's very important that I follow my passions in life - not merely the hobbies I have, but the things which weigh heavily on my conscience, on my heart, and on my spirit. Recently those have been (avoiding other connotations) humanitarian interests.

Example, a question I've been pondering: how do we implement 100 years of peace? (if even for a single country, obviously a much larger project for the world)

Per the dream, I'm realizing that I have duty to myself and to society to pursue that question.

I'm not sure yet how that works out into my job, my lifestyle, my living situation, etc... but I'm openly considering it. My next career move may be to implement my technical skills for some international relief organization. I'm still thinking on it...

(And yes, all these questions are altering my political opinions.)

Prisoner's Dilemma

Anyone who's ever heard of game theory knows the basic principle - subjective evaluation of risk/reward and probable actions of other agents (players). Oddly enough, with humans' naturally skewed risk aversion, this (per theory) usually ends in the worst possible case for the agents in the classic scenario.

[If you're not familiar with it, see wikipedia...]

Then comes the Golden Rule - do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Treat them the way you want to be treated.

What if I can't trust others to do their part in that system?
What if I'm kind to them, but they won't be kind to me?
What if my mercy is not returned?

What if I have no faith in other people? What if I cannot trust that they will also be kind?

Well it's pretty simple - without faith, I choose not to extend kindness to others.

With faith, I am choosing to extend kindness. This is an ongoing paradigm shift for me, and I would imagine most people - not that we are absent of kindness, but that kindness and cooperation is not our default position.

With faith, I bear fruit. (Yep, that's a biblical reference.) Faith without works is dead. To be Christian is to be kind - choosing not to extend kindness is unchristian. If you are not kind, your faith is not active, if present at all.

(Though I would admit a practical qualification that kindness is not always exactly what the receiver wants, rather what would be in their best interest.)

Continuing to ponder...

Global Warming

So, I'm still skeptical of "global warming", "climate change" and all these things. (Quoted not to discredit them, but to recognize their political evolution.)

I'm American. Sorry. Maybe skepticism in my blood, or maybe it's in the water. (I would tie it more to individualism, which is cultural.)

But I'm also a Christian - the kind that cares about people.

The warnings about the potential suffering and loss of life related - by some extension - to changes in climate are not falling on deaf ears, not by me anyway. I understand the risk, I recognize the need for precautionary measures.

I don't buy the party line, and I'm not even sure I believe the climate is changing the way they say it is... but I'm not interested in people suffering as a result of my decisions.

I also like the beauty of the world around me.

This is a paradigm shift for me. It's been a slow progression over the last three or four years, but here it is. I support preservation of the natural earth as we know it.

This comes in the company of a new grasp of my bigger-picture purpose in life. I'm not prepared to detail that purpose in full at this time, but suffice to say it's the result of reviewing my talents, in the common sense as well as the biblical.

It boils down to this: my first priority is to do good unto the people around me. Within that, there are sub-priorities:

1. Help them survive today.
   
2. Help them spare enough to survive tomorrow.
3. Help them support themselves. (Teach a man to fish...)
4. Help them support others.
   
5. Help them love eachother.
   
6. Help them with the metaphysical things. (Eternal life, happiness, etc.)
   

This is the basis of my purpose. It draws much on which to meditate.

Converting people to my belief system isn't a priority. Religiosity isn't my priority. Loving people is. It's easier for them to love when they're not suffering drought because their river dried up.

So that's it. Don't color me green, color me caring.

True Ninja

"The true ninja is a master of himself and his environment". 'Tis a quote from Ninja Turtles, often attributed to Leonardo, but I believe Master Splinter said it first.

Also, Isa 30:21, "You will hear a voice behind you saying 'This is the way, walk ye in it.'"

I know the first steps of some changes I want to see in my own life. Some are great and some are small. I hear that voice behind me. I must decide and take action. I must discipline my mind, refine my inclinations, focus my efforts, act decisively.

First be, then do. A battle is won first by will, then by might, then by discipline.

I've become entrenched in practical matters, logistics, paying the bills, pursuing long-delayed side projects. I will need to take time entirely separate from these, for introspection, meditation, and self-determination.

I believe it's time to pursue the matters I've discussed previously on this blog, but it won't be free. Some involves accepting parts of identity that I have previously ignored, some involves disengaging parts that I have previously embraced. Innovating identity.

Healing and the Problem of Evil

There's a rather old, tired question still floating around. I've linked this post to another person's perspective on it - though I don't agree with them - just to show it's still on people's minds from time to time.

If God is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful, why is there suffering/evil in the world?

I'll continue to refer to these "all" attributes later in this post:

1. benevolent/loving ("all-good")
2. omniscient ("all-knowing")
3. omnipotent ("all-powerful")
   

[This is widely known as the "Problem of Evil".]


I read an article today where a Christian minister rationalizes why God doesn't heal. The man does not specifically identify the assumptions made in said "old, tired question", but by researching him a bit, I've confirmed he subscribes to the traditional line of thinking, and these assumptions are specifically explained (and affirmed) on his website.

This man is a pastor, has a doctorate in theological studies, and wants to see people healed. He's frustrated (as many believers are) that healing is not apparently predicable. Many people strike up quite a bit of controversy because it effects their view of suffering around them, and how loved-ones often perish in seemingly unjust ways. These issues come into starker contrast when considering, "Why doesn't God heal me?", or "Why doesn't God heal this person I love?"

First, in Psalm 103:3, "He forgives all ours sins and heals all our diseases." Psalms aren't the best books in the scripture to be taken literally, so maybe "all" is a bit of an overstatement; other parts of scripture suggest that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is not forgivable, and we see by practical experience that some people aren't healed. Then again, I'm generally optimistic, so maybe we're just missing something.

In his attempt to explain God not healing some of his parishioners, the man offers seven possible factors. One of them boils down to the oh-so-cliché "God works in mysterious ways", so I won't give it much airtime. The other six all in some way violate one or more of the three assumptions above, or suffer some invalidity on other grounds.

[Be advised, this is an exercise to demonstrate by example that even those who claim to believe the assumptions listed above clearly do not hold them constant. My own views are stated at the end, so skip the point-by-point titles if you like. I've also paraphrased some of the titles for brevity.]

1. Lack of Faith

[Violates God's benevolence.] So, you're telling me God won't heal me because the guy praying for me doesn't have (enough) faith? WTF, this from a "loving" God?! That's neither fair nor just.
Or maybe you're telling me God won't heal me because I don't have (enough) faith...

Scripture includes many examples where people clearly didn't have the faith Jesus expected of them. So what does he do? He gives them more reason to have faith! He does NOT condemn/refuse them for it. (Mark 9:14...) A father comes to Jesus to heal his dying/dead son, and says "I believe, help my unbelief", and Jesus heals the son. 'nuf said.

2. Sin

[Violates God's omnipotence.] Erm, so now you're telling me that God doesn't have power over sin? What's this business of the crucifixion then? I seem to recall something about forgiveness in that whole thing...

(John 9) Outside the temple there was a blind man who Jesus healed. He pretty much writes sin off as irrelevant to the man's blindness.

3. "because the sick don't want to be healed"

[Violates God's omnipotence.] Perhaps they're complacent in their sickness/disability. Yeah, I'll give you that. Some people have such issues.

But this requires that God either cannot or chooses not to override freewill (i.e. willingly or not, effectively diminishing His power), even if it's for the good of the person who rejects His love.

4. "you do not have because you do not ask"

[Violates His omniscience.] He supposed that if they don't pray persistently, the "door" isn't "opened". Didn't they knock, if even once? Yes, the scripture recommends persistence in prayer, but why would an all-knowing God require it? Didn't He hear you the first time? I assert that considering this as a limiting factor in healing violates the assumption of God's omniscience.

5. "the demonic cause of the affliction has not been addressed."

[Violates His omnipotence.] While there's scriptural precedent, every case I know of involved Jesus casting out the demonic power. So... what's the problem? God has power over the demons, according to scripture. If there are demons involved, why wouldn't He do something about them?

6. God works in mysterious ways

I don't buy it. I'm tired of this one, honestly. The day I fall back to this as an explanation is the day I write myself off as a fool. I won't claim to understand God fully, but chalking something up to "mystery" in this context is the same as giving up.

Personally, I will fervently pursue truth and understanding ... forever. If I don't understand something now, I'll keep studying, praying, and learning from my experience. Until I have a substantiated theory, I'll provide an honest best guess, not some "mystery".

I just don't think a loving God, who specifically identifies His offer of eternal life as knowing Him (John 3:17), would make Himself unknowable.

7. There's something to learn in sickness that you won't learn in health

[Violates God's benevolence.] Huh. That's like saying "Nope, keep suffering, it's good for you."... Go figure. A loving God, eh?

I can't think of a single biblical example where that idea is expressed. On the other hand, there's always the (overused) Romans 8:28, when all else fails.
Reminds me of a neighbor once who told me that anytime I hear "it builds character", it means yer gonna get shat on.

What I actually believe.

So I'm really attacking two problems here.

First, the Problem of Evil - I recognize evil and suffering in the world, but I do not hold all three of the assumptions it requires; thus it's not a "problem" to me.

Evil and suffering are products of lots of different things. The first three: you, me, and everyone else - we all treat each other poorly from time to time, sometimes downright mean and sinister. There's a degree of chance and accident to it as well - traffic collisions, for example - generally not intentional, though sometimes the result of bad decisions, can bring a lot of suffering. There may also be "otherworldly" forces at play, but I personally have not had recent encounters with them, so I can't attest to their activity.

I don't think God knows the future. I don't think God necessarily knows everything about the present either. The Old Testament describes Him searching the earth for righteous people - why would He have to search if He already knew either the present and/or the future?

I don't think God is really omnipotent either, at least not in practice. Yeah, He's sovereign, not subject to my will or anyone else's, but He rarely overrides the freewill of any person, in effect limiting Himself. And you can bet He's quite powerful even still, just that He doesn't always exercise it in full and we don't always notice.

I do think God is benevolent. I know He's occasionally changed His mind (several times in the Old Testament, and you might see the Old v.s. New covenants as an evolution of salvation...). I think He's regretted a few things which have gotten Him some bad PR in the past too, like destroying cities here and there, that sort of thing - probably not widely seen as benevolence. None the less, I suppose maybe He's learned, I've not heard of Him doing anything nasty lately - though I've heard people blame certain catastrophes on Him, which I think is undue.

Second, on healing, my experiences convince me it's certainly possible; I've seen it. I do not have a one-size-fits-all explanation for why it sometimes/often doesn't happen, or even a list of possible factors.

It just blows me away that people try to rationalize the absence of healing. You'd think people would spent more time trying to rationalize its presence, given modern skepticismscience.

I think people who try to rationalize or create systems for healing (or the lack thereof) are on the wrong track. I think healing, like a great many things in life is a case-by-case sort of thing. My experience tells me this: when God wants it, and I want it, and the other person/people involved want it, it can happen. My involvement has been simple - I pray, I listen, I obey. From there it's ... well, not particularly well understood, by me anyway, but seems quite simple from my angle.

I can only say that when I operate under this perspective, interesting things happen. I don't often pray for healing, but the few times I have, it's worked. I try not to overthink it.


PS: on occasions when a loved-one is ill, I pray for them. I do not necessarily pray for healing. I don't sincerely pray for healing unless I'm convinced it's the right thing. I don't always know that.

Be Human, Be Holy

"Be holy, just as I am holy", said YHWH to Yisrael in the early books. Curious that the nation's name, and that of its ancestor (Israel) has sometimes been interpreted "struggles with/against God", as though we may be at odds with YHWH and company.

Genesis 32:28 -

And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

That guy combated an angel and survived - by no means do I understand that in practical terms, but I can imagine it'd be rather an outstanding experience. He fought a messenger of God and stood his ground. The point of the passage is that he has social, physical, and spiritual power. And he was blessed. A society was named after him. ... Makes you wonder.

As I've pondered in some of my posts on this blog in the last couple years, godly power is not beyond the reach of mankind. Forgiveness is an exercise of godly power. Jesus specifically stated that He expected us to do miraculous works. That means healings, no shortage of sustenance, and whatever "moving mountains" means. I'm curious.

God is primarily loving. God created us in His/Their image, in likeness. God designed us to be like Him, and thus, primarily loving. Humanness ought therefore be measured in terms of love, foremost among other things. The more we love, the more human we are, the more godly we are. Loving less makes us less human.

Love is oft forgiving. Forgiveness is the essence of Christ's covenant - He forgave us, we are obligated to forgive ourselves and others. Forgiving less makes us less human. Forgiving more makes us more godly.

I believe love and forgiveness are the seeds of establishing credibility of Spirit, by which we can exercise more of God's power.

We are not so unequal to God. We can be godly, and He/They expect us to be! That's not just in living a clean life, but in how we treat others - and it also bears the duty of exercising godly power... something I'm still working on ;)

Abraham reasoned with God, as did Moses. These men convinced God to change His/Their mind on more than one occasion. Clearly God sees our input as worthy of consideration - as though we could be, in some manner, equals. ... Though I recall some rhetorical question from the book of Job regarding who might advise God - I suspect that has more to do with false pride than godly equality.

As such, perhaps there are areas where I might legitimately disagree with God, and thus reason with Him. That doesn't make me implicitly right, of course, but it does allow me to pose questions and learn (when I'm wrong).

So, in the spirit of Yisrael, I will pursue holiness, and I will by all holy means pursue godly power, and I will pursue whatever Jesus meant of miracles. [Luke 16:16 - and I will take it by force.]

---

PS: I'm not talking about floofy "love" here, I'm talking about really caring for people, helping them when they need, doing right by them, and being a benefit to society... in James' terms, "true religion" is helping the orphans and widows, the poor and needy and powerless. While I could rant on how the stereotypical [American] Christian often fails to conduct him/herself in this manner, that's not my job - judgment is not mine - I would say simply that these things [love and forgiveness] are critical to being a good person, regardless of religion, and I do hope all who read this would consider these principles regardless of their religious background.

Judgment (the lack thereof?)

This is a turning point in my understanding. I've recently been studying the concepts of justice and forgiveness in the New Testament, and come to a realization I hadn't before experienced. Further study is due, and I will update this essay as my understanding progresses.

In this I'm also exploring a new perspective: putting a lot more weight on Jesus' words than anyone else's. Obviously the red lettering is added after the fact, but the emphasis may well be due. Traditionally I've weighted it about the same with words of major authors of the NT, but perhaps no longer.

The essence of this study: those partake of the Covenant of Forgiveness with the Messiah are not judged for sin.

The substantiating evidence goes about like this...

1. "Judge not, that you not be judged...Forgive, and you will be forgiven." (Matt 7:1, Luke 6:37 ESV) In other words, if you judge, you will be judged; therefore do not, and you will not. Some of the people I have consulted about this suppose that there are other factors contributing to the judgment one receives, but Jesus' words in this passage do not include such a supposition. In fact, the context supports the notion that one's judgment of other people directly influences the judgment of him/herself. [This passage, in my opinion, substantiates a critical point of the Covenant.] (See also Matt 6:14,15)
   
2. The Messiah also granted us the duty and privilege of exercising forgiveness on a larger scale, and alternatively withholding it - whom we forgive He shall forgive, and whom we do not forgive, He will not forgive (John 20:23; see also point 1).
3. The Covenant of Forgiveness (Matt 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20) grants us forgiveness of our sins. This has two major impacts...
1. If we're forgiven anyway (pending repentance?), then why waste time judging us?
2. As parties to the Covenant, we ought keep up our end of it - in my understanding, that means we also have an obligation to forgive. (The Lord's Prayer, Matt 6:12)
   
4. Jesus welcomed the criminal who hung next to him on the Cross into Paradise "today", without apparently judging him. It's worth noting, in this case, that this criminal was well aware of his error and recognized Jesus' righteousness. (Luke 23:43)
   
5. Rather a curious coincidence:
   
1. "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son" (John 5:22)
2. "You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me." (John8:15-16)
3. "If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world." (John12:47)

Boiling it down: It's all about forgiveness. We are NOT judged! That's why Jesus died, to establish the Covenant that we might be forgiven, and forgive. Forgiving is an exercise of the power of God! (Matt 9) This is becoming a reality in my spirit.

This change is refreshing for me. My previous perspectives have persistently had undertones of earning my righteousness - that never seems to work. That I will not be judged, that I am already forgiven, in keeping with the Covenant, is freeing indeed.

This is a different perspective than what I'm usually told. It seems Jesus did NOT pay our debt on the Cross... rather He CANCELED it! (Col 2:14) I've looked hard for clear passages, especially Jesus' words, indicating otherwise, but His parables, as well as the epistles, confirm this tangential notion as well. So... No debt. The debt is forgiven (not paid), and you don't need to earn the forgiveness - just keep the Covenant and forgive other people!

Again, this is a work in progress. I'll update it as more becomes clear.

Mobilizing (The Pursuit of Happiness)

This is all the product of the past month and a half or so, spending time with new people, thinking differently:

• I will actively pursue happiness.
• I CAN do whatever I set my mind to do.
  
• Whatever I find that makes me happy (and is ethical) I will do.
  
• I will consider new ways of finding happiness.
• My happiness is a product of my own determination to be happy
• My circumstances WILL NOT dictate my deeper happiness
• So far as I can change my circumstances, I will use them to drive my happiness
• Circumstances which are not under my control are not relevant.
• My happiness will not depend on the decisions of those around me.
• I can change myself
• ... requiring help from time to time
  

Related conclusions:

• Not pursuing happiness results in the oppression of one's own spirit
• People don't survive long without hope
  
• Advising people is utterly useless if they never implement your recommendations
• People who cannot execute a decision are passively deciding to give up their own happiness/success/welfare

I'm implementing these (new) ideas.

First off, I mean to make time to relax. I've found (at a friend's bachelor's party) that responsible/moderate consumption of alcohol is (at least for the time being) a highly effective way of freeing myself, if even for a moment, from a few burdens. I'll watch movies/TV with my full attention, not thinking about work/programming/stress* at the same time.

As soon as I get my school work in order, I'll be spending more time with my wife and several friends -- they are more important to my sanity than I originally understood, and being as cerebral as I am, I tend to isolate myself. That will have to change.

And a few other things. As I recall them, I'll update this post.

There's more to this, on 'higher' levels, relating to social and philosophical observations. It's rather interconnected though, so explanation is somewhat complicated. I've found it hard to express some of the relationships between these ideas (hope, happiness, motivation, etc) for some time now. Hopefully I'll finally write these succinctly soon.

I'm in flux at the moment. Things are getting interesting ;)

Separation of Church and State

First off: I maintain various beliefs in accordance with the foundational teachings of the dominant religion of my culture, on the basis of my experience and (for what it's worth) reason. None the less, I appreciate and principally agree with the idea that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." [wiki]

Until now, I thought the separation was merely a measure to allow/enforce the government's oblivion to religious disagreements (as you'll see in that wiki reference above, it apparently isn't oblivious...), such that it could not force any person or population to participate in any religious activity nor affiliate with any such institution or ideology. That's tolerable and appreciated, since my views differ from many people around me, and we all wish to remain free without raising social tumult about it.

Today it became clear to me that there's more to this than meets the eye -- or at least met mine at first. I do not suffer the delusion that the founders were overtly religious, nor that they were opposed to religion -- to my knowledge they all had Christian upbringing of some sort, but many had become 'deists' [wiki] and diverted in other ways. Thus I submit it's reasonable to believe that since the founders had some consciousness of something spiritual, and since their writings address matters of spiritual significance to (different populations within) society, the writings themselves may also embody an understanding of something spiritual (or at least philosophical).

To summarize the observation and assumptions I incurred today:

• The benefit of society is served by means of exercising morals (utilitarianism)
  
• Church facilitates determination of the people's moral sensibilities (indoctrination?)
• Serves as the "mind" of the people
  
• State facilitates the people's exercise of their moral sensibilities (legislation)
• Serves as the "hand" of the people

The essential problem here is that the "hand" should have no influence on the "mind". This metaphor falls apart though: in an actual person, the mind should have direct control over the hand; in our government, the people are of varying "mind[s]", so the people should act as intermediary between their respective "minds" and the "hand".

The founders established the separation between Church and State in part as a response to their dislike for what they observed in England and other European countries in which the States sponsored and/or enforced Church participation (i.e. "hand" controlling "mind").

To borrow a biblical analogy, the "hand" controlling the "mind" would eventually result in the "blind leading the blind"; society would end up in a downward spiral (kind of like a toilet bowl) trying to resolve its various issues without any standard widely enough accepted to bring succinct consensus.

... In other words, society would replace its thinking cap with a dunce cap, intelligent decisions being replaced by the habit and trend of the whims of unguided "law makers", which at this stage seem to be more motivated by money than morals or utilitarian good.

So. Another reason to appreciate the remnants of our well-structured society, and reason to involve ourselves in our political process, as well as whatever other peaceful means we can find to maintain and promote the general welfare. Let's try not to become so short-sighted as some of our "law makers" and other leadership.

Precisely the Opposite

This blog {is|will be} the collection of my thoughts on matters spiritual, philosophical, political, and so on. My professional (technology) blog will remain befreely.blogspot.com.

I'm in the process of moving relevant postings over to this one, and will prepare another excessively lengthy post when I have a chance ;)

Words of Wisdom

So I've been reading, and meditating...

Even a good person sees evil so long as good ripens not; but when it bears fruits then the good one sees the good results.

-- Words of the Buddha


Reminds me of a passage in my preferred source of ancient wisdom (paraphrase):

He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

-- Words of Yeschuah the Messiah (Matt. 5:45)

I realize they're not saying the same things, but they provide an interesting contrast.

In the first, Buddha says that a person's actions do not immediately bear consequence, and that a good action may not bear fruit for some time, but that eventually it eventually will. In the second, Christ is expressing the idea that we should love everyone, including our enemies, as our Father does. These essential ideas aren't really even related.

There is a similarity though: both express the idea that there comes a time when bad people experience good, and good people experience bad. It would seem that time is not fair, in this regard. I suppose the point is that a person should be able to cope with hard times and bad people with patience and perseverance, loving the bad people and keeping faith and hope through the hard times.

I get the feeling my friends think I'm better at this than a lot of others. Maybe they're right. I know that I have a lot of room to grow; when life gets tough, I can get grumpy, but I try to be patient with people anyway. I miss my times of prayer and meditation, as they seemed to help me maintain my sanity in these valleys of chaotic times in life, and as I get them so rarely these days, I wonder how much longer my sanity will last.

Tonight I have been blessed with a few moments of peace, in which I could calm myself and consider these things. ... Just enough to keep going for a little while longer, tiding me over until the next opportunity.

RE: Why Love God?

A friend recently posed the question, "Why love God?" (See this link) His question is based on a collection of linguistic, semantic, philosophical, and religious premises, some of which are oriented toward a specific worldview. I address the premises, the thought process, and the conclusions, as they are evaluated in the "traditional" context of Christian theology/philosophy. I also contrast these with my preferred view, the "Open View of God". Those of you who who have a Facebook account can find a discussion of these ideas under a group of the same name.

Please note that when I refer to the "traditional paradigm" I'm referring to the foundational mix of theology and philosophy that most people learn as typical Christian teaching.

Also, this response is a bit lengthy, and may seem repetitive, so bare with me and please pardon.

---

First off, commentary of specific passages:

God creates human. God creates laws humans can’t follow. God punishes humans for their failure to follow the laws. God wants to be loved for being merciful and not punishing us for not following the laws it was impossible to follow in the first place.

This construct represents a rather cynically simplified version of the "traditional paradigm" in regard to God's relationship to mankind as most Christians understand the history of the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. The last sentence of this construct contains enough negations to be confusing to a inattentive reader. I'll try restating it: "God wants to be loved for being merciful and [forgiving] us for [failing to meet the standard that] was impossible to [meet] in the first place." I have a few disagreements with this perspective, but I'll address that later...

It refers to God giving its son to humanity as a living sacrifice for all of our sins. Jesus, through his death and resurrection, made it possible for the imperfect (us) to commune with the perfect (God) – in other words, be saved.

Right, so this is generally agreeable (particularly to the "traditional paradigm"), though I don't consider song lyrics to be an authoritative source of theology. It should, however, be noted that the apostle Paul quotes a popular song in the early part of one of his epistles ... I forget where, I'll look it up if anyone asks.

if God knows all, and God caused all (being the first mover) it caused you and I to sin and, then, is willing to punish us for the very thing it caused us to do.

This series of assumptions is based on the usual all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good philosophical problem, which is a serious problem for the "traditional paradigm" and is the foundation of many opponents' challenges to Christianity as a whole. (They -- mostly academics -- make the unfortunately incorrect assumption that all Christianity is by nature based on these assumptions.) I also challenge these, but not with the intent of debunking all of Christianity, only to pursue a more accurate (and coherent) perspective of Biblical theology and philosophy.

The important part of the definition is “ownership.” [...] My question is: Was Jesus a sacrifice for our sins? [...] The traditional view of Jesus is that he was God. [...] Did humanity “own” him?

Then on the topic of "sacrifice" and whether or not we are at a loss when (supposedly) we present Christ as our sacrifice... This is actually fairly straight forward: Find me a passage of scripture which implies that we own Christ ;) Then consider Hebrews 9:26, "He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." Also, part of your reference on the definition of "sacrifice" includes the following: "personnel that are sacrificed (e.g., surrendered or lost in order to gain an objective)" ... Let me know what you think of that.

The whole concept of sacrifice and tithing (giving money to the church) makes little sense when you consider this: God owns everything. It permits our use of things but, since God is omnipresent and omnipotent, it is impossible for God to give up possession of an item.

Wait, God's omnipotent and omnipresent?! Oh right, this refers to the "traditional paradigm". The Bible actually never says these, and the net effect of scriptural analysis on the topic yields the general conclusion that "God" (long story, but it's more of a title than a name) are not actually all-powerful in the sense that everything goes his way, nor are they (read: "Elohim" as stated in Genesis) actually present everywhere at all times, and indeed (though not referred to in Josh's discussion) all-knowing. The "Open View" doesn't have these difficulties. (This too is a long story. Post a comment if you have doubts or challenges to this.)

Well, God didn’t die because it can’t die.

Are you sure? Where did you hear/read that? In Scripture? Show me... Also, "it"? I guess you're referring to the Trinity/Godhead? These are "traditional paradigm" concepts, so I suppose if this assertion is made in that context, then its sensible to use such terminology.

Yes, he went to hell (or as the Mormon’s call it “America”).

Nice ;)

But Jesus died knowing he would be reborn. I mean, he’s God for Christ’s sake.

Well... maybe. This remains open to some debate (on a biblical basis), and may be more accurate to state "he's [a] God", this being distinguished from "he's God".

That brings me to my biggest problem this morning: the concept of love.

Big topic indeed. I spent months trying to grasp this before I even knew there was an iceberg beneath the 50-pages or so I had written on the topic, trying to understand its myriad facets and interaction with other aspects of life.

If the traditional model of God is accurate then the following is true: God created laws and communicated them with us throughout time expecting us to follow them.

It may be more accurate to say "God created [a system of law]". Under this "system" it's apparent that "God" "knew" people would make mistakes, which is why He/They established the rituals of burnt offerings and such, which would atone for the failure of the people to keep their behavior in line with the other laws. Go figure... Now as far as punishment goes, there's very little biblical substance to support the idea that any time a person would break the law (i.e. commit sin, i.e. lie, steal, kill, etc) that "God" would punish them. The only serious support for this is in the very early stages of humanity, where Cain killed Abel, and the subsequent progression of humanity into a self-destructive mode, and even then the punishments were milder than a human structure of justice would apply. (There's also a rather unique instance in the New Testament of people lying directly to "God"'s face, and they subsequently died.) Other than that, God didn't really express any significant animosity toward the Jews (you'll notice that's the only legitimate context for this discussion) until the significant majority of the Israeli society turned against Him/Them.

God sent us his son to be the eternal sacrifice (see above for the problem with that). And we are supposed to love him for this act of grace.

Well, in general, yes. Please see my above commentary on the supposed problem with this. As for us being "supposed to love him for this act of grace", I'll address that in sum a bit later.

As the song says “there is no greater love” than what? Setting up some perverse system of unfair rules and then punishing those who don’t follow them?

The rules were unfair? Because (supposedly) no human can follow them satisfactorily? Even the scripture itself says that (if I recall) the only ones who were "perfect" under the law were limited to very few, including Elijah and Daniel. So are you then arguing that it then took "God" 2000 years (the time of Moses to the time of Jesus) to find a better solution? You would think that He/They would get tired of humanity failing so horribly, and eventually just wipe us all out. Either that, or "God" must not be as smart as we thought...

---

Right, so Josh asserts that the "law" (the Torah, 10 commandments and such) were "unfair" and "perverse". If his other assertions, namely that "God" knew we would fail the "law" and guaranteed our punishment due to such failure, are true, then Josh may be correct in calling them such.

On the supposition that "God" knows "everything" (hence omniscience), and thus knows the future, thus implying that the future must be "set in stone", so to speak, and is thus predestined, we are effectively stripped of our free agency. Yes, this is a serious problem for the "traditional paradigm" as it also completely nullifies the need of Christians to proselytize, and thus also Jesus' command to that effect. According to such philosophy, if everything is predestined then it doesn't matter whether an evangelist spreads the Gospel, since everyone who is predestined to be saved will be saved whether he does so or not. Many other scriptures further nullify the concept of predestination. (There's my one paragraph to debunk predestination and foreknowledge.)

So, assuming then that "God" does not know the future, it cannot be asserted that "God" "knew" that we would fail the law. This does not leave out the possibility that He/They were aware of the probability that we would. Still, He/They provided the means for atonement of such failures via the ritual offerings, which were the implementation of "God"'s grace (and admittedly were only practiced in Judaism for quite some time).

The only context for which this system of law could be considered "perverse" and "unfair" is in the "traditional paradigm" which holds (among other questionable things) "God"'s omniscience, particularly in regard to foreknowledge. Else, it becomes very difficult to argue such nature of the law.

---

Further, I have nowhere (of significance) heard that Jesus was our sacrifice, insofar as we had ownership of Him. Whether we have ownership of Him or not, the "traditional paradigm" has a few problems it needs to negotiate in this regard...

Jesus did not pay for our sin. Instead, Christ established a covenant of forgiveness. (See Matthew 26:28 and context.) Had Christ paid for our sin, there would be no use for forgiveness. A debt paid is not forgiven -- it is paid, plain and simple. A forgiven debt represents a loss to the debtee (i.e. the one forgiving), and effectively a gain to the debtor. A paid debt represents no loss to the debtee. Hence, it may be asserted that "God" (Christ?) did in fact incur loss in the act of forgiveness. (This is the part that most "traditional paradigm" teachers have the hard time with.)

A worthy question to follow this: what exactly did we owe "God", and what did He/They lose in forgiving us? As concisely as possible: the fulfillment of the previous covenant, which spillt the blood of animals to enact a renewed covenant under which a person can retain righteousness and (scripturally) holiness. (See the significance of blood in Genesis where Cain kills Abel, whose blood cries out from the ground.... "There's power in the blood" anyone?)

Even so, the scripture does not assert any human ownership of Christ, nor that we sacrificed Him. Actually, the scripture makes every indication that He sacrificed Himself on our behalf. (See Hebrews 9:26) A note to commentary above: Who said "God can't die"? Wasn't it Nietzsche? Oh wait... Anyway, the question is only relevant in the "traditional paradigm", since it asserts that "God" is a single being. I hold that "God" is a title, and that both Christ is (a) God and that the Father is (a) God; again, this is distinct from being a "god", in that a "god" is a thing that we worship and idolize, while a "God" is also a "god" but is actively present in our lives.

As an aside: The statement, "there is no God", from an atheist is thus true: for such a person, they do not perceive/observe any being (spiritual or otherwise) to be actively present in their lives who is also worthy of being idolized. For them to assert that a Christian's "God" is non-existent is as useless and foolish as a Christian to assert that (micro-)evolution does not occur. Just because I haven't observed (micro-)evolution myself doesn't mean it doesn't occur; similarly, just because someone else hasn't observed "God" the way I have doesn't mean He/They don't exist.

"God" says to the Jews: "You will be my people and I will be your God." When the Jews started worshiping other "gods" then "God" was no longer their "God". Get it?

---

Finally, to the actual point: "Why love God?"

If Josh's assertions were true (under the "traditional paradigm"), then they would present some significant challenges to teachers and believers of the "traditional paradigm". While I do not agree with this paradigm, I'm sure most believers in it would find a way to answer Josh's arguments to their satisfaction.

To answer the initial question, however, quite succinctly (having challenged both Josh's assertions and the "traditional paradigm"): "because that's the point*."

"God" did not create us solely so that we could love Him/Them; this would reflect egotism on "God"'s part. "God" created us because it is His/Their nature to be creative (we see this also in humanity) and it was His/Their desire to create a being which had free agency, a soul, spirit, intellect.. and to be like Them. (Anyone wonder why we're trying to create artificial intelligence?) It is also in Their nature to be loving, and this is also seen in humanity (though we also suffer the effects of ages of rebellion against such nature).

It is apparent through scripture that when a creation begins to defy its own nature and purpose, it moves contrary to its "destiny*" then it will eventually be committed (by itself, perhaps) to destruction. This is what we see in Revelation when "God" sends "Satan" to destruction; "Satan" was likely not created as the father of all evil, actually. More likely it/he was created as a herding dog of sorts, among others, which would nip at our heels when we do not move according to the will of the shepherd, metaphorically. When he/it began to operate outside the bounds of his nature and purpose, he pursued a destiny of destruction. Similarly, when we choose to operate outside our intended nature and purpose, we begin pursuit of a destiny of (self) destruction.

If we do not love, we are operating outside of our nature and purpose. If we do not love "God", we are denying our nature and purpose, as well as our origin. Do you wonder why the most important commandments relate to loving God and loving people? Jesus effectively tells us to operate as we were intended to, as it is our nature and purpose.

The effect of not loving God: we deny our origin. The effect of not loving people: we begin the process of self destruction and harm to those around us. Go figure.

When a pet dog operates outside its nature and purpose, suppose it bites the child of its owner, the owner commits the dog to destruction for the safety of the child(ren). If the owner has many dogs, the dog may be given the opportunity to change its behavior, but if it does not, it will be committed to destruction for the good of the entire pack of dogs, as well as the owner's family.

Humans are not dogs, I know. It was a metaphor, in hopes that one could understand how a master perceives the misbehavior of his flock. (I sincerely hope no one questions this, it will reflect on their aptitude for such discussion.)

Anyway... that's a long one. I hope ya'll get the point. Peace upon you.

Religion

[excerpts from a response to a question on the nature of religion]

i've observed an interesting pattern [in people] though...people get dissatisfied with their lives, and they seek ways of changing their circumstances...they often look outward, to money, physical stimulus (sex, drugs), politics, hobbies...trying to find a way to satisfy themselves...and they may, for a short time, find that satisfaction...but it's short-lived, so they inevitably go looking again.

eventually, some people find other sources of satisfaction which are much more permanent... and for the sake of discussion, we'll call it inspiration...not like the artistic kind, but the kind that fundamentally alters a person's paradigm. some people find it in Hinduism, others in Wicca, others in native american tribal beliefs...(other religions too)... ultimately they all come down to something spiritual or philosophical, but it has to penetrate their souls... so... yeah... that's what changes people, though sometimes not for the better.... as a friend of mine says "ideas have consequences"

so for me, I pursue that which I find to be true and trustworthy, which has the best outcome from pratical application. before I believe something, I study it very carefully, and examine it's eventuality... and I believe I've found Truth, and its Author, you might say. ... though I don't presume to have a corner on it, since I know full well that I don't comprehend its entirity ;)