RSS
 

Archive for the ‘Spirituality’ Category

A Case for Marriage – G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

14 Dec

Yesterday I wrote about how Christmas being about Christ would be better communicated by how Christians live that people attaching the abbreviated name “Xmas.”

Along the same lines is the debate about the governmental definition of “marriage.” There’s different cultural forces in the debate about that word. Christians are told that everyone is offended by them saying the name of the Federal Holiday “Christmas” so they must not say it. You must not ask people to be tolerant of your perspective. With marriage, there is a very purposeful effort to create a new definition, which would be legally forced on everyone to accept. One point being: you will not be tolerated for your beliefs (calling Christmas “Christmas”), but you will be legally required not to tolerate but to accept and have your children taught someone else’s beliefs (changing the millennials-old religious concept of “marriage.”)

This isn’t the first time in American history that marriage has come under attack. Possibly a greater attack was when divorce was made legally quick and easy. Today Christian marriage doesn’t stand out in American culture from non-Christian marriage. Christians, including multiple pastors by whom I’ve been taught, have divorced. We’ve caved. We’ve gone the convenient route of compromising our covenants. We’ve changed beliefs about marriage because it became legally and socially acceptable to break our bonds of covenant, which are supposed to symbolize the commitment of God to his people. We aren’t acting like Hosea, we’re acting like Hosea’s wife.

I’ve often thought that the case for Christian marriage wouldn’t be a verbal sparring or a federal constitutional amendment. (My libertarian side doesn’t think the federal government should get into this debate, but leave it up to the states. Neither side of the argument agrees with me as everyone would seemingly rather force their ideas on everyone rather than allow choice.) I’ve thought the stronger case would be for there to be a revolution regarding the theology of marriage among Christians.

G. K. Chesterton makes a surprisingly logical and secular case for Christian marriage in Orthodoxy. It’s part of a great chapter by a great book by perhaps my new favorite author – but I’ll write more on Chesterton and this book later. Here Chesterton is writing about his disagreement with his peers that believe a perfect utopia would be the dissolution of all personal bonds. He sees that as a dystopia. It seems that Chesterton’s comments lean toward a perspective that argues for protection of the marriage concept as something that is for the good of society.

What is your perspective? Here’s Chesterton:

I could never conceive or tolerate any Utopia which did not leave to me the liberty for which I chiefly care, the liberty to bind myself. Complete anarchy would not merely make it impossible to have any discipline or fidelity; it would also make it impossible to have any fun. To take an obvious instance, it would not be worth while to bet if a bet were not binding. The dissolution of all contracts would not only ruin morality but spoil sport. Now betting and such sports are only the stunted and twisted shapes of the original instinct of man for adventure and romance, of which much has been said in these pages. And the perils, rewards, punishments, and fulfilments of an adventure must be real, or the adventure is only a shifting and heartless nightmare. If I bet I must be made to pay, or there is no poetry in betting. If I challenge I must be made to fight, or there is no poetry in challenging. If I vow to be faithful I must be cursed when I am unfaithful, or there is no fun in vowing.

You could not even make a fairy tale from the experiences of a man who, when he was swallowed by a whale, might find himself at the top of the Eiffel Tower, or when he was turned into a frog might begin to behave like a flamingo. For the purpose even of the wildest romance results must be real; results must be irrevocable. Christian marriage is the great example of a real and irrevocable result; and that is why it is the chief subject and centre of all our romantic writing.

And this is my last instance of the things that I should ask, and ask imperatively, of any social paradise; I should ask to be kept to my bargain, to have my oaths and engagements taken seriously; I should ask Utopia to avenge my honour on myself.

 
No Comments

Posted in Books, Culture, Politics, Spirituality

 

Christmas and X-Mas

13 Dec

Sharing the Joy of Jesus' Birth

Since I was a child I’ve heard people lamenting “the X where Christ used to be” in Xmas.

Once I learned Greek I learned that χ (chi) is the first letter of χριστυς, the Greek word the biblical authors used for “Christ,” or “Messiah.” After a bit of research, I realized that for centuries Christians have been abbreviating words with chi instead of writing out “Christ,” such as in the ixthus (the Greek word for “fish”), which is an acronym that in Greek stands for Jesus Christ God’s Son Our Savior. While it may be a way for people to avoid “Christ” and just focus on the Catholic “Mass” of Christmas, it wasn’t started maliciously. (Coincidentally, none of my evangelical friends are seeking to follow or promote the “Mass” part of “Christmas.”)

What would be a stronger case for Christmas – Evangelicals arguing with non-Christians that they should call a day by the name of the Catholic Mass, or, Christians acting like Christ as we remember his birth?

Christians who say that Christmas should be about Christ yet celebrate Christmas in identical ways as non-Christians are silenced by their actions.

Rather than merely yelling “It’s about JESUS!” at people, perhaps the point would be communicated better by more Christians, who by their name are also supposed to be about Christ, lived out the idea that Christmas is about Jesus – not presents, chocolate, decorations, etc. On Christmas we celebrate the greatest sacrifice in history – God, to testify to the truth, lowering himself to the form of a fragile human baby to grow up and be the sacrifice for the world.

Celebrating this ought to look very different that a winter solstice festival, or a celebration of a fat man who delivers gifts to greedy children.

Shouting a catchy slogan at the world is perhaps not what Jesus had in mind when he told us “as you are going throughout the world make disciples.”

If all we have is words, we are condemned by Christ quoting Isaiah in Matthew 15: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.”

Live Christmas differently if you want to communicate that it is about Jesus.

 
1 Comment

Posted in Culture, Spirituality

 

Chanukah History [video]

02 Dec

Here’s an entertaining way to learn a little bit about Chanukah.

YouTube Preview Image
 
1 Comment

Posted in Spirituality

 

About the open letters about Planned Parenthood funding.

21 Oct

I recently posted open letters to Kohl’s and Staples asking if they support Planned Parenthood. Kohl’s replied that they do not, and I’m still waiting to hear back from Staples.

What is my purpose in writing these letters and figuring out if these large companies where I spend money are financial-backers of abortion?

It’s an interesting struggle, figuring this out, and I’d love any thoughts you have to contribute to a discussion of this kind.

What’s the point of me writing to Kohl’s (who confirmed within 1 business day that they do not donate to Planned Parenthood)? If a clothing store supports Planned Parenthood, I may be able to buy the same clothes from another source. I can’t, however, go without pants altogether. That would be showing the world something, but it wouldn’t be showing them Jesus.

Am I responsible for what Kohl’s, Staples, or other companies do with their money? To answer this, I think about Jesus’ command that the people of Israel pay their taxes, and this money was used to oppress them as well as wage war against others. Jesus didn’t put the responsibility for Rome’s crimes on the people paying taxes. There is no indication that Jesus thought that by paying their taxes they were guilty of Rome’s crimes.The responsibility of the people was to be law-abiding citizens, and to live at peace with all people as far as it was up to them.

So what is our personal responsibility today? The direct application is that we should pay our taxes as required bylaw. A more general principle about money is that we are supposed to be good stewards. Unlike taxes, buying products is not required by law, it it discretionary. (Except for healthcare under the Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan.) That is, while we need clothes, we aren’t obligated by law to buy our clothes from a specific store. Every dollar spent is a vote in favor of who you’re giving the money to.

For a long time I avoided WalMart because of horrible customer service. I avoid Casa Bonita because the food is awful. I avoided The Sharper Image because it was expensive. I walk out of movies and get my money back if it’s overly obscene (Anchorman, Super Bad), a mockery of the very book it’s supposed to based on (The Runaway Jury) or a comedy that’s not funny at all (Napoleon Dynamite). These are all understandable, and I’m adding another category to this list: stores I’ll avoid because of what they do with their profits.

My goal isn’t to start a boycott to shut a place down or put people out of work. My goal is to take the personal responsibility that is given me in being a good steward of the money which God has put me in stewardship.

Do I bear personal responsibility for what someone else does once I give them my money? No. But I do bear responsibility for giving it to them in the first place. Why give my money to a place that supports crimes against humanity when there’s another option?

I’m willing to go to one store over another to save $5. But am I willing to spend the $5 extra if that less of the money that leaves my stewardship is then used for evil? Is $5 worth more than a human life? (Certainly of the $5, perhaps a few cents will be used as a donation to Planned Parenthood and pays for a tiny fraction of an abortion. But by going down this road, we’re making an argument that supporting a certain percent of evil is fine, or else you’ll end up calculating a price tag on a human life. I don’t think that following that logic will lead us to a good place. I think it’s safer to base the argument on good stewardship.)

Would you buy coffee from Al Qaida if it were cheaper than Starbucks? Hopefully you answer “No, because I’d be sponsoring evil just to save a few dollars on a latte.”  I’m proposing that this is the same reasoning we should be using whenever we spend the money under our stewardship.

An investor takes someone else’s money and invests in companies. Good investors will research what they’re investing in to make sure it’s worthwhile. They do their research before investing. And while the investor isn’t responsible for a CEOs decisions, they are constantly watching these companies and the people who lead them to make sure it’s still a good way to invest this money that others have put under their stewardship.

Why would we consider stewardship of God’s stuff less important than an investor’s stewardship other people’s investment funds?

I’m not arguing for making your own clothes from cotton grown in your backyard to avoid the chance of some of someone else being a bad steward. I’m not arguing that you bear personal responsibility for what Microsoft or Starbucks, Mardel’s or Chik-fil-a does with their profits. Perhaps in the future I will make those arguments as I explore these issues, but today I am simply arguing the following:

It is worth the time to learn about where you’re investing God’s money, and choose the options that contribute least to evil according to the information you are able to obtain.

 
10 Comments

Posted in Politics, Reason, Spirituality

 

Bambi’s mother: Materialism’s moral self-defeat

20 Oct

Bambi's Mother

I was recently speaking to someone about materialism, and I was curious as to how someone who believed only in the natural realm would argue morality.

Evil is that which a good person would stop if they could.

This naturally begs the question: If evil is solely determined as being the opposite of what a good person wants, then what is a good person? An example was given to disprove the existence of a good God.

If Bambi’s mother dies a slow and painful death, that’s something a good person would stop if they could. Therefore, that’s evil and if someone had the power to stop this and they were good, they would stop it. An all powerful God could stop it, but doesn’t, therefore, there is no morally good all-powerful God.

There are many fallacies in this example, but perhaps one will suffice. Materialism rejects God because God would stop that which is morally evil. Having removed the concept of God, the naturalist has also removed the concept of good and evil. In removing the God of the Bible, they have removed that which justified their question the God of the Bible.

In the perspective of materialistic evolution, the natural is all that exists. Some atoms banging together became rocks, and other atoms over time, became Bambi’s mother. There’s no moral superiority of Bambi’s mother. She’s just an accident of nature and though prettier than a rock, has no moral superiority over the rock. In the materialistic world, how is a deer morally superior to a deer’s corpse? Certainly the deer feeds Bambi, but the deer’s corpse feeds the entire forest with nutrients. From the perspective of the naturalist, then, the illustration is that a blob of matter changes due to the world around it. There’s no moral evil there.

“But,” one may object, “the question isn’t just about death, but about agony and pain.”

Yet the same naturalist will argue that pain, like pleasure, is merely the cause and effect of matter and energy bouncing around. Again there is no morality there. The real “evil” is that the deer evolved an ability to feel pain.

Or perhaps the real “evil” is that blobs of matter we call humans evolved a sense of compassion for the pain of other blobs of matter.

While the materialist may say a Christian’s worldview has to deal with the problem of evil, the materialist’s worldview has to deal with the problem of not being able to explain either evil or good.

In other words, the materialist says that human suffering is evil and disproves any moral deity, but they will say in the next sentence that humans are inconsequential byproducts of the evolutionary process and are nothing more than small blobs of matter that are part of the gigantic blog of all matter. They will say that human suffering is an insurmountable challenge to God, but then declare the human suffering is of no consequence at all.

Evil is only defined as that which a good person would stop, and a good person is only defined as a person who stops that which is evil. Evil is only a concept in that it relies on there being a firm definition of goodness, until we ask about goodness, and we find that it can only exist if there’s a firm definition of evil. Having removed any non-material moral force, there is neither a definition of good or evil, so the entire moral argument fades into non-existence.

 
2 Comments

Posted in How to Fail at Arguing, Reason, Spirituality

 

Open letter to Staples about abortion support

19 Oct

This is a copy (without my full name and address) of an email I just sent to Staples.

Dear Staples:

I shop at Staples for office supplies, computer supplies, and have chosen staples as my source for purchasing very expensive equipment.

I read today (here: http://www.lifenews.com/nat6623.html) that Staples financially supports Planned Parenthood.

Like more Americans, according to Gallup, I believe that abortion is morally wrong because it is taking the life of a human (by scientific definition).

Because Planned Parenthood is in the business of promoting and providing abortions, I naturally have moral objections to my money being used to fund them.

Is it true that Staples supports Planned Parenthood? What is the nature of this support? Does a portion of my every purchase go toward funding Planned Parenthood? Is it a matching program where the Staples corporation matches contributions made by employees?

Please respond as soon as possible as whether I shop at Staples in the future depends on your response.

I am also posting this letter publicly online and will post your response as well.

Thank you for your time,

SecondJon

 
16 Comments

Posted in Culture, personal, Spirituality

 

Open letter to Kohl’s about abortion support

18 Oct

This is a copy (without my full name and address) of an email I just sent to Kohl’s department store’s community relations department.

Dear Kohls community relations:

I shop at Kohl’s for my clothes, shoes, towels, and other things. I am a Kohl’s card holder. We frequent Kohl’s for myself, my wife, and my children.

I read today (here: http://www.lifenews.com/nat6623.html) that Kohls financially supports Planned Parenthood.

Like more Americans, according to Gallup, I believe that abortion is morally wrong.

Because Planned Parenthood is in the business of promoting and providing abortions (which according to science is taking the life of a human) I naturally have moral objections to my money being used to fund abortion.

Is it true that Kohls supports Planned Parenthood? What is the nature of this support? Does a portion of my every purchase go toward funding Planned Parenthood? Is it a matching program where Kohls matches contributions made by employees?

Please respond as soon as possible as I need some new jeans, but whether I shop at Kohls in the future depends on your response.

I am also posting this letter publicly online and will post your response as well.

Thank you for your time,

SecondJon

 
21 Comments

Posted in Culture, personal, Spirituality

 

Religious Extremists, Part 2: Timothy McVeigh

09 Sep

Yesterday I began writing about religious extremism. The talking point popularized by Rosie O’Donnell on The View is that Christian extremists are just as dangerous to America as Muslim extremists. This doesn’t even pass the laugh test. Here’s how one filmmaker made this point, in An American Carol:

YouTube Preview Image

There’s a few arguments used to bolster these false statements.

Claim: Timothy McVeigh was a Christian extremist/terrorist.
Timothy McVeigh was violent, but not a religious extremistThe thought pattern is: McVeigh was the Oklahoma City bomber, he was a Christian, therefore  that’s the equivalent to the  terrorists that crashed planes into the world trade towers on September 11th, 2001.

However, McVeigh described himself as a theist and declared “science is my religion.” That sounds much more like our atheist or agnostic friends than our Christian ones. Further, McVeigh did not commit violence or murder in the name of Christianity. He did not declare before or after that he was killing people for the advance of Christianity.

The effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) are now fairly well known. If a soldier called for active duty overseas mentally snapped and started going on a shooting rampage, it would likely be blamed on PTSD, regardless of the religion of the person. If, however, they had been attempting to contact known violent leaders in a religion and shouted out before or during the violence that they were doing this for the advance of their religion, that’s a much better indicator that they’re killing in the name of their religion: Because they’re saying that they are.

That’s why the Fort Hood shooter was a religious terrorist, but McVeigh was not. McVeigh never even revealed what he actually believed, much less said that he was murdering because of that faith.

 
1 Comment

Posted in Politics, Spirituality

 

Religious Extremists, Part 1

08 Sep
YouTube Preview Image

Since Rosie O’Donnell declared that Christian extremists were as dangerous as Muslim extremists, it seems to have become an official talking-point of American politics. I’ve heard media talking heads say that Christianity and Islam are the same: not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Christians proselytize.

Naturally, telling someone there’s a free gift of eternal salvation available to all is strikingly similar to blowing up yourself along with a bus load of people, or two trade towers. Why didn’t we see that before? In perspective, we can all now see that every Billy Graham event was as damaging to America as 9/11. Yet the American military doesn’t seem to be able to track down one old man in the mountains of North Carolina. I smell conspiracy. How did we not realize this when Graham called his events the most politically incorrect word: “Crusades!” Oh, the horror of extreme Christians!

George W. Bush promoted the idea that Islam is a religion of peace. What about that sneaky worldwide trend of violent extremists rising up within Islam? We’re told that every religion has extremists, but it is no reflection on the religion or the people who follow it. But especially Christians.

Today a Christian extremist is in the news again.

A small US church says it will defy international condemnation and go ahead with plans to burn copies of the Koran on the 9/11 anniversary.

The top US commander in Afghanistan warned troops’ lives would be in danger if the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida went through with the plan.

Muslim countries, the US government and Nato have also hit out at the plan.

But organiser, Pastor Terry Jones said: “We must send a clear message to the radical element of Islam.”

The US government, NATO, even General Petraeus have spoken against this man. Petraeus warned that the action could cause violence “not just in Kabul, but everywhere in the world.”

The Huffington Post calls this “our own home-grown variety of dangerous extremism.”

The State Department calls him “un-American.”

I’m not arguing that this guy is correct – or that he’s incorrect – in what he’s doing. But I think it’s important that we get down to what is happening here. Like the conversations at Jim Taggart’s wedding reception, no one is willing to name what is going on here: Terrorism.

Muslims burn an effigy of Pastor Terry Jones who may burn a copy of the Koran

Crowds of Muslims in Afghanistan are chanting “Death to America,” and burned an effigy of the pastor – who as of yet, hasn’t done anything. The Obama administration has called on Americans to join these protests against this American pastor.

And yet, less than a year ago, there was a Bible burning that did not receive international or even presidential condemnation. What’s the difference? What’s the thought pattern in this case?

Everyone’s behavior should be modified out of fear of violence from a certain group of people.

Yet – isn’t that the very definition of terrorism? (Yes, it is: “the state of fear and submission produced by the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce.”)

Will this empower the enemies of America in Afghanistan? Perhaps. It already has, and nothing has happened.

Will this endanger American civilians in Muslim countries around the world? Possibly.

Is it foolish to tempt a bully that is threatening violence against you? Perhaps. And that’s why the bully stays the bully. That’s why the mob wins. That’s why terrorism works.

The government of the United States is one that will pay someone $15,000.00 to take and popularize photos of a crucifix in urine, that will ignore Bible burnings, yet speaks out against anyone who does not submit to at least some of the commands of Islam.

Regardless of Rosie’s talking point, anyone who argues that this guy is a dangerous Christian extremist is saying that only because of what Muslim extremists will do. Anyone who argues that he should stop because of potential violent Muslim reactions is saying there is a difference between Christian and Muslim extremists.

 
7 Comments

Posted in Culture, Media, Politics, Spirituality

 

White House Soteriology: Praying daily makes one a Christian

19 Aug
“]

"The president is obviously a Christian. He prays everyday."

In an attempt to redirect attention from recent polls about up to 25% of Americans believing President Obama is a Muslim and less than 40% believing he’s a Christian, the White House declared:

“The president is obviously a Christian. He prays everyday.”

If the statement was just “The president is obviously a Christian,” that would have been the error of mere assertion: Merely because you assert something is true, that doesn’t make it so. Luckily, they offered a proof: “He prays everyday.”

There’s a few problems of course:

  • Not everyone who prays everyday is a Christian. Muslims pray every day, for example.
  • One isn’t a Christian on the basis of how much one prays.

While prayer is part of being a Christian, you’re not a Christian because you pray. By “Christian” I mean someone who is following the biblical model of following Jesus.

Becoming a follower of Jesus has to do with living out one’s belief that Jesus is master (Lord) of your life. It is evidenced by what grows out of your life, what actions you exhibit. It has nothing to do with being perfect except that a Christian will, over time, change on issues as (s)he lives more as Jesus as their master.

While Obama’s family is Muslim, and while he has Muslim names, anyone who believed he was a Muslim for those reasons already thought so during the election, and that doesn’t explain the dramatic increase in those numbers. That has to do with Obama’s actions:

This isn’t necessarily new to Obama – there have been questions about previous presidents faiths. Whether or not Obama is a Muslim isn’t the point of my writing. The point here is the flaw in reasoning and the glaring misconception of faith.

Praying daily does not make it obvious that someone is a Christian. Saying so makes it obvious that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Clearly White House overall has no idea of what it means to be a Christian. No wonder they misunderstand Christians so much!

How do you feel about the White House defining Christianity this way?

Another issue here is that the media are declaring the state of a person’s soul – the article linked to above states:

The number of Americans who believe — wrongly — that President Obama is a Muslim has increased significantly since his inauguration and now accounts for nearly 20 percent of the nation’s population.

Can you imagine an article beginning: “The number of Americans who believe –wrongly — that the Tea Party movement contains extremists…”?

Why is it necessary for reporters to be inserting this commentary? Even the punctuation around “wrongly” makes it the word that stands out most. This isn’t reporting. This is commentary.

“The president is obviously a Christian. He prays everyday.”

 
4 Comments

Posted in How to Fail at Arguing, Politics, Spirituality

 
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »