Ξ June 30th, 2010 | → 1 Comments | ∇ Life |
*This from the "World Atheist Conference: God & Politics" in Copenhagen:
We, at the World Atheist Conference: “Gods and Politics”, held in Copenhagen from 18 to 20 June 2010, hereby declare as follows:
- We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.
- We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.
- We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.
- We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.
- We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.
- We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.
- We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law – laws which all governments should respect and enforce. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.
- We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.
- We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.
- We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths. We oppose state funding for faith schools.
- We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and in the diversity of religious beliefs. We support the spirit of free inquiry and the teaching of science free from religious interference, and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.
I’m no atheist, but this does make sense to me.
Ξ June 28th, 2010 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Life |
Before the religious conversion of Saul/Paul, the only Christian group seems to have been the Jewish Christians in Palestine. It was formed by the followers of Jesus and was led by James, who was referred to as the brother of Jesus. The Jewish Christians regarded themselves as a Jewish reform group. They attended and supplied animal sacrifices at the Temple, celebrated the Jewish seasonal festivals, practiced circumcision of their male children, and followed the strict dietary and behavioral laws in the Hebrew Scriptures. They regarded Jesus as a prophet anointed by God, and not in any way divine. Beliefs such as the virgin birth and Trinity, were unknown to them. Church organizations, including priests, bishops, formal creeds, etc were not part of their practice; these developments only appeared in Christianity decades or centuries in their future.
Later in the 4th decade of the first century CE, when Paul returned from his three year hiatus, probably in Syria, he introduced his belief system — Pauline Christianity — in competition to Jewish Christianity. In 70 CE, the Roman Army destroyed Jerusalem and killed most of the Jewish Christians. The survivors scattered. This left Pauline Christianity largely free to evolve into the Catholic Church.
The earliest creed of the later Pauline Christian movement appears to have been: "Jesus is Lord." The expression is found throughout the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) and on the walls of ancient buildings "Anyone who made this declaration at their baptism was regarded as a Christian." That was a very inclusive definition of "Christian" then, and remains so today, because of the wide range of meanings given to "Lord." It could mean God; it could mean spiritual leader.
*from "Religious Tolerance.org"
Ξ June 22nd, 2010 | → 4 Comments | ∇ Life |
*This post continues my earlier post
"I have come that they might have LIFE, and have it more abundantly" (Jesus speaks according to: JOHN 10:10)
So what did he mean by this? The explanation has often become part of the problem. Evangelicals often replace LIFE with the word SALVATION; meaning that "life" is not the important part, "salvation"is. Often it is: get your "fire insurance", then sit back and wait for Jesus to come back and take you to heaven….oh, if you feel you want to help the poor and oppressed while you wait, that’s OK.
I see this quote a little differently. Abundant life wasn’t exactly the norm in Jesus’ day. So something unusual would have to happen to bring it about. Seems to me Jesus was saying that the time has come to rethink everything. I am offering you the kingdom of God. This is truly the gospel (good news). Open your hearts and minds and see things in a different way.
Just so you understand, I don’t have all the answers (a shock I’m sure). I’m still working on them. But, I think I’ve pegged the general idea of what Jesus was saying in the quote.
Here are some of the things I believe can lead to that abundant life that he promised:
In this world, we should seek the common good, not just our selfish interests.
We must understand that we are all neighbors in a global community and seek justice for all, as well as the best for our world (enviromentally).
We must seek reconciliation with, rather than competition with and domination of, our fellow man.
Jesus did all this through parables, and ethical teachings (“which should not be seen as laws through which one earns hell or heaven, but rather as practices through which people can seek and participate in the Kingdom of God.”) All of this calls us to respond by disbelieving the framing stories we’ve been taught and to "rethink everything". A framing story is “a story that gives people direction, values, vision, and inspiration by providing a framework for their lives.” It should be obvious that the framing stories we all have been taught have not done the job. This was Jesus’ purpose; to offer us NEW framing stories.
Ξ June 18th, 2010 | → 2 Comments | ∇ Life |
"I have come that they might have LIFE, and have it more abundantly" (Jesus speaks according to: JOHN 10:10)
*Maybe we shouldn’t try to add to this………..
I just purchased a book which details the life and times of J. Frank Norris, the (in)famous leader of the independent Baptist movement in Fort Worth, Texas, and, it might be said, the nation back in the 1920’s. The book is called, "Apparent Danger", by David Stokes. I have grown up hearing the stories of J. Frank Norris and his dealings with city fathers and others here in Fort Worth. But I never heard the full tale! This is a book for anyone who wants to find out how the "megachurch" movement began, and who loves a good authentic, bona fide tale.
But the real story that this book presents is the trial of Norris for the murder of one of his own deacons in the church office, which took place about two blocks from where I work. It was quite a trial.
You can read the entire newspaper article about the new book here:
www.star-telegram.com/2010/06/08/2248065/fort-worth-preacher-j-frank-norris.html#tvg
If you have the slightest interest in history, an interest in fundamentalism in the U.S., this book could be for you. I will review it when I complete it.
"According to the worldly norms of human behavior, when we help someone and place great trust in them and they mistreat us in return, it is seen as reasonable to be angry with them because we have been hurt. However, practioners of bodhicitta must not give in to this type of conventional thinking. Instead, we should learn to view such people in a special way, as objects for our practice of forbearance and loving kindness. We must in fact recognize these people as our spritual teachers."
Wow! I like that! Before I could post this, I have already had the chance to test it on myself!
In his new book, "A New Kind of Christianity", Chapter 12, Part IV, Brian McLaren discusses one of his critics who was asked what he thought about "McLaren’s Jesus" (I suppose you could say the Jesus of the Emergent movement today) . The critic claimed that McLaren and his friends want to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in his hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes.
WOW! I never viewed McLaren quite that way, nor the Emergent movement as well. I don’t agree totally with his theology. But then again, I have not found anyone’s theology that I totally agree with. I find Brian to be a compassionate, Jesus-following Christian, with a new vision for a post-modern Christianity. But my opinion aside, I wanted to give you the critic’s idea of who Jesus is and let you decide if that’s the way you see Jesus today.
The characterization of McLaren and his friend’s view of Jesus was nothing compared to the one which the apparently unnamed critic imagined.
"In Revelation, Jesus is a prize-fighter with a tatoo down his leg, a sword in his hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is the guy I worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up."
To quote McLaren, "What would cause this articulate and highly commited Christian to portray Jesus as a prize-fighter, armed with a sword, intent on harming, killing, inflicting violence, drawing blood?"…
McLaren’s explanation (you’ll have to read his book for that) as to why his critic described Jesus this way is, in my opinion, fine and is in line with his thesis in the book, but is inadequate for me. I simply cannot for the life of me understand how this critic reads the story of the life of Jesus that I do in the Bible (as near as we have the story) and arrive at that definition of who Jesus is in The Revelation, and what Jesus’ ministry seems to be all about both there in The Revelation and in the gospels by default.
This is the one of the major problems with Christianity today. There are too many Christians with too many varied, and I mean VARIED opinions of who Jesus was/is and what he was all about. Any opinions out there?
Stumble it!
