17 4 / 2013

Marcus Borg: A Different Look at the Meaning of Easter

Permalink

17 4 / 2013

http://religionforlife.podomatic.com/entry/2013-04-16T13_16_04-07_00

Borg on the chronology of the New Testement and his new book Evolution of the Word

Permalink

04 8 / 2012

The *Real* Reason We’re Going Cuckoo Over Chicken

For days now, I’ve seen so much filling up my facebook feed pertaining to the issue with Chick-fil-a, and I’ve engaged in so many discussions/debates about it, that I honestly just want to hang my head in my hands and sigh.
I guess the most frustrating thing about all of this is the way people are mistaking our disapproval as having to do with the freedom of speech. As an American citizen, the freedom of speech is something I deeply value, and I respect the Cathy’s rights to speak as they please on all matters, even the matter of homosexuality. That is not what bothers me, or many of the others who have decided to stop showing financial support to them or their company through purchases of their products. My issue is where that financial support then goes.
You see, the Cathys donate millions of dollars to anti-homosexual organizations, and while I completely respect their right to do with their profits as they please, I am equally within my rights to choose to contribute instead to the profits of those companies that take action more in line with my own personal beliefs. Being an informed consumer means I have to understand that any further contribution to CFA would mean that I either agree with where my money would then go (which would be akin to me donating to those causes myself) or I just choose to be apathetic and uncaring about the information I have received - neither of which I am comfortable with.
But what needs to be understood is that our choice to from now on refrain from contributing to their establishment, and therefore their causes and agenda, is in no way an attack on their rights or their opinions. It’s not us banging down their doors, demanding for their establishments to be shut down. It’s merely using our rights as informed consumers to take our business elsewhere - just as someone might do if they disagree with the ingredients of the chicken being served (which I can understand, with anti-foaming agents, etc). It’s not some sort of hateful display, it’s not an “intolerant” act meant to disrespect Mr. Cathy or his opinions.
So calling us intolerant for choosing to no longer support CFA is ironically hypocritical, when compared to the uproars over JC Penny hiring Ellen, and other recent issues we’ve seen groups of Christians boycott and protest, even with the opinion that such action is “Christian duty.” I’m not demanding he changes the way he runs his business, I’m not making judgments about his salvation or his lifestyle or even his Christian identity - as we’ve seen done by Christians in this (my own Christian-ness has been challenged (something I’m used to by now, haha) in debate because of my views of the issue, and of homosexuality) and those other mentioned issues. I’m merely choosing to take my business elsewhere.
Basically, it comes down to this : if you’re going to claim that his stating his opinion, and perhaps even donating money where he does, if you were aware of that, doesn’t constitute hate, discrimination, or intolerance, how can you turn around and declare that those of us who disagree with him are intolerant or hateful just because we won’t buy from him anymore? It’s not like we’re contributing money towards the purpose of denying him his right to run his business as he pleases - you know, like he does in the case of homosexual rights….

Tags:

Permalink 1 note

08 6 / 2012

Quran burning preacher at it again by hanging effigy of Obama

This guy never ceases to amaze me, with how un-Christlike his example of Christianity really is. This takes it to a whole new low, though. Personal political opinions (and the fact that I am still pro-Obama and pro-gay) aside, there is never any excuse for something like this.

It’s one thing to disagree with or dislike the president (any president), but this kind of thing is something else entirely. What baffles me, though, is how people do this in the name of Christ, or as representatives of Christ, without even seeming to stop and ask themselves whether Christ would be guilty of the same behavior; the same willful ignorance, prejudice, and hatred.

It’s as though they don’t even care how they seem to represent and embody exactly what Jesus himself tried to warn us against, and the irony of claiming themselves as Christian while doing so is certainly evident. I get that we all interpret and understand Christianity differently, but is any interpretation which behaves in a way that so completely contradicts Jesus’ message, or the character of Christ we’re called to emulate, ever really “right?”

Tags:

Permalink

16 5 / 2012

Permalink

10 5 / 2012

(via voteagainstamendmentone)

Permalink 111 notes

10 5 / 2012

(Source: humansitsashton, via rockstarwife628)

Permalink 321 notes

26 4 / 2012

A thought on Amendment 1 and the idea of religious justification for discrimination of homosexual equality

I grew up in North Carolina, where currently there is much debate over “Amendment 1,” which, if passed, would add the ban against same sex marriage (it’s already illegal in the state of North Carolina) to the State’s constitution, as well as opening the door for other awful side effects. But it is the aspect of religion that I want to address here.

Anyone who has read my previous post on homosexuality knows already that I am an advocate of homosexual equality and, based on my understanding of the original language, do not believe that the Bible considers homosexuality to be the sin that people claim it to be. But I think there is another issue here as well…

And that is, why is it our business to tell others what they can or cannot do based on our religious beliefs (whatever the issue may be), especially in a country that believes in religious freedom and equality?

Is it right or fair because right now we’re (Christians, or whatever group we may be discussing, depending on any given religious issue) the “majority?” Would it be fair, or right, if someone else were the majority and were using their majority status to limit our own freedom to act on our convictions and beliefs? How many people using religion to justify depriving homosexuals their rights would just lay back and accept it if it our rights were voted away by people of a different belief just because there are more of them? Isn’t this part of what the whole point of freedom of religion was supposed to circumvent?

(Though, I’m of the opinion that things that pertain to the rights of citizens shouldn’t even be up for a vote, because rights are meant to be inalienable, so people shouldn’t have to win a vote to be granted something they should already have. So this isn’t even about voting or asking to not vote, etc, as I think it’s wrong that it’s up for vote at all.)

My main pint is: didn’t God Himself grant us free will? So why do we insist on denying others the freedom to decide for themselves? Shouldn’t we merely say that we believe someone shouldn’t do something (speaking generally, not specifically, obviously), instead of insisting they *may* not?

Are we called to witness (share, teach, reflect, etc) the “truth” (whatever we believe it to be on a given religious issue), or to enforce it?

Was our system of government even intended for such a cause or was it intended to prevent it?

Is it our job to police or control or neighbors, or to love them?

Does being anti-someone or something promote love? Isn’t it possible to disagree without turning it into some kind of battle to be won, where the person ends up being some sort of collateral damage in our zealous efforts to stomp out “evil” instead of focusing our energy on cultivating love and truth?

Does allowing others the room/freedom to disagree with us or to act in ways we don’t agree with in any way inhibit or infringe upon our own rights to believe and act as we choose?

The list of questions could go on and on, but the point remains the same:

If God intended for us to have the freedom of choice, why do we deny that freedom? If our government is also established on freedoms why do we attempt to defy them? Are these efforts really necessary or compatible with what we are called for in this life of faith or are they a distraction from the real point, the real work we’re intended for? Are they really something that provide spiritual nourishment or growth, or do they perhaps stunt us, trapping us in one stage of progress on the path towards Christ-like emulation?

Is homosexuality really such a “threat” to Christianity, or is Christianity (in this kind of situation) really its own worst enemy?

…though that’s another discussion entirely, I guess…

Tags:

Permalink

25 4 / 2012

"If—at the time of death and judgement—I am to be punished for a universalist point of view and a life-long effort of bringing together my brethren in a single, peaceful humankind, then I will gladly be the first to step into the fiery gates of hell."

Alberto Daniel Diaz (via alliszen)

Permalink 19 notes

30 9 / 2011

A Defense of My Spiritual Identity : Why I am a Christian

I have been asked how, since I reject so much of the “traditional” opinion, I can “justify” calling myself a Christian. I understand that many find my unorthodoxies unsettling, even incompatible with the faith they claim. And so, for those people, I will attempt an answer, whether I believe they will be satisfied with the answer or not.

I recognize that, to many, there are certain beliefs that are considered mandatory if one so wishes to consider themselves part of the Christian family.This isn’t something I personally adhere to, not when I recognize all of the different versions and strains of Christianity (there are approximately 38,000 denominations existing just today - and that’s not counting all of the various strains and sects of Christianity that have existed throughout Christian history that aren’t included in today’s numbers) with different, even, at times, conflicting beliefs, as well as the various arguments that have existed from the beginning of Christian history on issues such as the nature of Jesus, the concept of the Trinity, and so much more (some of which I’ll most likely end up writing on in the future). Understanding that, as well as the how fallacious it is to insist that there actually existed one, unified Early Christian Church (Harvey Cox’s The Future of Faith gives a great look into said fallacy), I instead choose to break it down to the lowest common denominator, the one thing that absolutely *every* strain and form of Christianity *is* able to agree on : Jesus himself.

I have said before that my definition of a Christian is :
“someone who believes in the person of Jesus, the message of love, compassion, and humility shown through his life, the thought that he reveals to us the character of God, Who is love and compassion, and who believes that living by his teachings and following his example can bring us closer to God as well as our fellow man.”

Though I recognize that said definition may leave out some of the more conservative or fundamentalists who stress a more vengeful (and therefore not so loving or compassionate) side of God, the basic gist of my definition is someone, anyone, who’s faith is founded in the person and message of Jesus, however one may understand them.

And I *do* believe in and follow the person of Jesus and the message he taught - I just happen to understand it differently than many of the other Christians out there, though not all, I’ve found - as I continue in my religious “education”, I constantly realize that there are more of us out there than one would initially believe.

(Authors like the aforementioned Harvey Cox, as well as those like John Shelby Spong, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Philip Gulley come to mind, though I don’t believe exactly as they do, it is nice to have others represent a not so orthodox side of Christianity)


Not only do I believe in the person and message of Jesus, they make up the *very foundation* of my faith. I am *firmly* rooted in the person of Jesus and the message he gave us, the Bible that came to express that message (whether or not I believe it does so infallibly, think it is meant to be understood literally, or interpret it the same way others might),  the God of love and compassion he devoted his life, and death, to serving, and even the Christian faith itself (even if I prefer to recognize and consider *all* the various forms and branches within the Christian tradition and its history, and not limit myself to the more well known, “accepted,” or “approved” strains). And while it is true that I feel the message Jesus gave us can also be found echoed in the teachings of others, and occasionally pull from those others, their attributed texts, and the faiths founded on their teachings in my spiritual cultivation and understanding, it does not change that the Jesus is *the* example upon which my faith is formed, that *he* is the one I am most familiar with, the one in whom I am most deeply rooted.

As well, with Christianity being the religion through which I was raised, the means through which I came to understand faith, God, humanity, etc, I must admit that I see things through a Christian perspective, in terms of vocabulary, perception, understanding, etc. I may reject what many consider to be “traditional (or “required”) doctrine”, but that doesn’t mean that I’m not rooted, in perception and in way of understanding/processing information, in the Christian tradition. Christianity is the lens through which I understand life, humanity, divinity, even other religions.

I must recognize and admit that, even when I study other religions, I do so through a Christian mindset, as it is my ground of reference, if that makes sense. I don’t understand them as their followers understand them, though I do try to understand them in a way that is as unbiased and as honest to their actual intent as possible. I *have* to admit that my Christian perception causes me to look at them in a certain way, to make certain connections, to frame the information in a certain understanding or frame of reference. My *entire worldview* is based upon the Christian tradition. Therefore I couldn’t convert to any other religion (believe me, a few years ago I had a crisis of identity, afraid I couldn’t call myself a Christian anymore, only to realize that Christian is all I could *ever* be), since I would merely be following a Christian understanding/adaptation of that faith. Not that I don’t think the various faiths are good enough on their own, I just have Christian perceptions/themes/ideas/etc I wouldn’t be able to leave behind, if that makes sense.

It’s not just Jesus or a Christian mentality, though - I also am rooted in the Bible. Many may feel my beliefs are unbiblical, but I believe they are supported by the Bible. I just read the Bible differently; understand it differently (as will be addressed in an upcoming post). I *am* following and applying the Christian holy text, it *is* the text I read most and lean on the most, given I am most familiar with it, the text I compare others to, another way my perception and ground of reference is framed. I may not be a literalist, or believe it is the “actual” word of God, but I do believe that one can find truth within its pages, and rely on it more than any other text in my walk. Yes, I read other texts and believe those other texts (and their respective faiths) contain truth. But I *am* rooted in the person of Jesus, his message, and the texts and tradition that surround him. That is the context in which my worldview and faith are framed.

My ultimate goal is to follow Jesus and his message (as I understand it), to emulate him and live his teachings in a visible way in my life. Whether one would wish to deny it of me, I am still a Christ-follower, still strive to be Christ-like.Christian is the strongest self identifier I have, the deepest part of who I am….

I just look at the *whole* picture – the different strains and ways of understanding Jesus and his message, the different factors (like the changes in ideas like “belief”, the concept of rite vs right, the Jewishness of Jesus as well as the political side of his message, archaeological/scientific evidences and how they relate to how I understand the text, etc, etc), the different influences on Judaism and Christianity and the Jewish/Christian thoughts/beliefs, as well as changes in Jewish/Christian belief/opinion. I don’t just limit myself to what this more conservative, fundamental, literalist version of Christianity has to say, especially since this version of Christianity is one that is so new (literalism and fundamentalism being relatively recent ways of understanding Christianity will also touched on in another post).

I don’t believe that Jesus came to establish the kind of required belief that we see today, I don’t believe orthodoxy (in terms of “right belief” or an “accepted way of following Jesus”) would have been something spoken or established by him. The Christian faith today, I believe, would be unrecognizable to him. He spoke against legalism, dogmatism. Called us to a standard of love and faith, which isn’t the same as belief.

I believe in studying what I can, as far back as I can, as much as I can, in order to try to come to a more original understanding of his teaching/message. I don’t believe in just taking the Bible at face value, assuming we can understand we know what he was trying to express without even taking the time to look at the original language or tradition. And I have devoted myself to digging as deep as I can, to getting to that original message, to what he *really* meant for us to understand.

And…. to be honest, I believe as I do because I believe it is *more* genuinely Christian (or, at least, what Christ intended) than the other interpretations and applications of the Christian faith and the message and teacher it is founded upon…

Whether or not one believes that it is doesn’t change the fact that it is *undeniable* that my faith and beliefs are *all* about Jesus and what he had to tell us, that I *am* a Christian - an earnest and sincere follower of Christ.

I’ll close with a phrase I may have used before in my writing, but one that I do truly feel sums up my faith and identity. And that is:

Christian, in my opinion, doesn’t imply an adherence to specific criterion of faith, but instead indicates a specific standard of heart, a criterion of love

And I do - I strive to live, and to love (God and His creation), like Jesus…..

(Up Next : This Unitarian’s Understanding of Jesus)

Tags:

Permalink 1 note