Stumbling along the way

Today was Blasphemy day and I missed it

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:30:00 GMT

Considering who is the Rabbi I follow, and what crime he was brought before the Sanhedrin for, this is a day all good Christians should celebrate.

For one man's blasphemy might be the actual truth.

transformation

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:58:16 GMT

I'm reading an interesting book called the Transformation of Man by Rosemary Haughton (bad title, but she wrote it, not me). Takes an interesting look at the roll of what is broken in our lives and how encounters with others in broken moments can transform lives and relationships turning much that was wrong into something wonderful. Such moments become transformative through the decisions that are made, and other decisions can equally destroy.

Thus in one example in her book, sex transforms when the decision is made to deepen a relationship. That transformation creates a marriage - even if there is no public ritual nor realization in the part of the partners. The drive towards sex, pulls two people together and when they choose to give of self selflessly through sex to only that other, they change the nature of their relationship, and of their being.

So, on this basis (and here I'm pushing things not her) homosexual marriages find their legitimacy. When ever their sexual drive to the specific other pulls them into a committed relationship where in sex becomes an expression of the reaffirming love through which two become partners that daily choose each other no matter what, and helps bind the relationship to over come the pain of life, choice and loss. That is marriage.

It is interesting to see how a well respected catholic theologian can come to the right conclusion regarding the transformative challenge of sex and provide the moral framework for the recognition of homosexual marriage and not see it herself.

At least she saw the right things regarding the transformative nature of sex. That alone is rare in catholic theology.

Questions

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:04:05 GMT

In a conversation I've recently had with an atheist regarding why I'm a theist, I noted the following questions I always ask myself. Thought I'd share:

What do I gain in a belief in a loving God who wants to have a relationship with me but leaves the choice as to the relationship and its nature to me?

What do I loose in having such a belief?

Does such a belief or absence help me in getting through what must be endured?

Does such a belief or absence keep me from an honest assessment of what must be done?

How do my choices impact how I relate to others who have choices that differ from mine, and am I happy with the impact?

Do I engage myself in a community with those who make similar choices or do I abstain from such a community?

What is the impact of that choice on my children, especially as they will have different needs than me?

Had an argument with Paul the other day

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:00:46 GMT

Paul and I are too alike, or so my father keeps telling me. He should know, he knows us both well.

Anyway, Paul likes lists and in Galatians, he lists the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

When I read/hear this, all I can think of is "No, Paul, they don't come FROM the Spirit, that is how you behave when you are trying to live a spirit filled life, when you are seeking God.

Paul replied with "And as all good things originate in God, why the fuss?"

Damnation, but he's right. Don't mean I have to like it.

The Second Coming of Christ or Nirmanakaya

Fri, 29 May 2009 16:19:28 GMT

what I mistook for life slips through my desperate grasp and I am not what I thought
becoming now being without the bounds of time so that by gift I purge I transform I become
I am by gift become being in union with and distinct from all that is and for nothing was and shall be was a concept born of anxiety and ignorance
through gift of love I become who I always had the potential to be, warts and all, good
and I am
surprised
and I am
grateful
I discover I never knew myself and in the knowing what it is that was loved who is me discovering me
I am
glad and I give it all back to the giver willingly, eagerly, passionately, knowingly for the first time
to become in the ever cycle of giving/receiving which is the becoming/being and
I am

My journey is about to be uncronicaled

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:14:49 GMT

I will shortly no longer have time to blog, so I'm taking the time I have now to say fare thee well. I will miss you all.

Shanthi, Shallom, Pacem, Peace.

Vigil

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:43:00 GMT

Easter Sunday, we were walking.
Easter Sunday, we were talking.
Isabel, my little one, take my hand. Time has come.

Isabella, all is glowing.
Isabella, all is knowing.
And my heart, Isabella.
And my head, Isabella.

Frederick and Vitalie, savior dwells inside of thee.
Oh, the path leads to the sun. Brother, sister, time has come.

Isabella, all is glowing.
Isabella, all is knowing.
Isabella, we are dying.
Isabella, we are rising.

I am the spring, the holy ground,
the endless seed of mystery,
the thorn, the veil, the face of grace,
the brazen image, the thief of sleep,
the ambassador of dreams, the prince of peace.
I am the sword, the wound, the stain.
Scorned transfigured child of Cain.
I rend, I end, I return.
Again I am the salt, the bitter laugh.
I am the gas in a womb of light, the evening star,
the ball of sight that leads that sheds the tears of Christ
dying and drying as I rise tonight.

It is finished

Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:57:43 GMT

Were you there when they crucified my Lord ?
Were you there when they crucified my Lord ?
Oh, sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble
Were you there when they crucified my Lord ?

Were you there when they nailed him to the tree ?
Were you there when they nailed him to the tree ?
Oh, sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble
Were you there when they nailed him to the tree ?

Were you there when they pierced him in the side ?
Were you there when they pierced him in the side ?
Oh, sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble
Were you there when they pierced him in the side ?

Were you there when they laid him in the tomb ?
Were you there when they laid him in the tomb ?
Oh, sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble
Were you there when they laid him in the tomb ?

I know not the man

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:03:08 GMT

On the willows, there
We hung up our lives
For our captors there
Required
Of us songs
And our tormentors mirth

On the willows, there
We hung up our lives
For our captors there
Required
Of us songs
And our tormentor's mirth
Saying
Sing us one
Of the songs of Zion
Sing us one
Of the songs of Zion
But how can we sing?
Sing the Lord's songs?
In a foreign land?
On the willows, there
We hung up our lives

I wish I did. He is hidden behind a veil drawn by first century men who tried to share their joy and understanding but couldn't get beyond their expectations which colored all that is recorded so that not all the redlining in the world can find me a word I know he said, nor the context in which it was said. All I can know is what these men choose to share and I want to tear apart their limited and crippled twisting of Gospel for they are keeping me from knowing him.

I, like my father before me, will start to look for the Risen Lord and try to see the incarnation bursting forth in the lives of those around me. If I can begin to see what God sees when I look at people within the world, then I might begin to know Jesus.

I'll start by looking for those who wash feet, at those who anoint heads.

Why is this night different?

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:30:22 GMT

Ilu hotzi, hotzi anu
Hotzi anu mi mitzrayim
Mi mitzrayim, hotzi anu
Dayenu!

Refrain:
Da-dayenu, da-dayenu, da-dayenu
Dayenu, dayenu, dayenu
Da-dayenu, da-dayenu, da-dayenu
Dayenu, dayenu

Ilu natan, natan lanu
Natan lanu torah tovah
Torah tovah, natan lanu
Dayenu!

Ilu natan, natan lanu
Natan lanu et haShabbat
Et haShabbat, natan lanu
Dayenu!

To all those who celebrate at sunset tonight: remember, once you were slaves but now you are free!

Donkey

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 19:35:01 GMT

You're comin into town on your donkey tonight
comin into town on your donkey
You're comin into town on your donkey tonight
comin into town, comin into yea yeah

It will permeate across the ages
comin into town on your donkey tonight
and you're wearing our garland
comin into town on your donkey tonight
and you're wearing our garland
shake shake shake
lies, lies, lies, lies
will lead them up, lead them up to the dominion
lies will lead them up
lead them up to the minion
lies will lead them up lead them up

you'll be going out in the spirit
You're comin into town on your donkey tonight
but you'll be going out on a cross
but you'll be going out on a cross
but you'll be going out on a cross

Hosannah!

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:25:30 GMT

Hosanna
Hey Sanna Sanna Sanna Hosanna
Hey Sanna Hosanna
Hey JC, JC won't you smile at me?
Sanna Hosanna
Hey Superstar

CAIAPHAS

Tell the rabble to be quiet, we anticipate a riot.
This common crowd, is much too loud.
Tell the mob who sing your song that they are fools and they are wrong.
They are a curse. They should disperse.

CROWD

Hosanna
Hey Sanna Sanna Sanna Hosanna
Hey Sanna Hosanna
Hey JC, JC you're alright by me
Sanna Hosanna
Hey Superstar

JESUS

Why waste your breath moaning at the crowd?
Nothing can be done to stop the shouting.
If every tongue were stilled
The noise would still continue.
The rocks and stone themselves would start to sing:

CROWD AND JESUS

Hosanna
Hey Sanna Sanna Sanna Hosanna
Hey Sanna Hosanna

CROWD (alone)

Hey JC, JC won't you fight for me?
Sanna Hosanna Hey Superstar

JESUS

Sing me your songs,
But not for me alone.
Sing out for yourselves,
For you are bless-ed.
There is not one of you
Who can not win the kingdom.
The slow, the suffering,
The quick, the dead.

CROWD and JESUS

Hosanna
Hey Sanna Sanna Sanna Hosanna
Hey Sanna Hosanna

CROWD (alone)

Hey JC, JC won't you die for me?
Sanna Hosanna Hey Superstar

More seriously on Incarnation

Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:53:50 GMT

Well, I imagine that most folks who read my flippant post on Incarnation had the same reaction my father did, so let me treat this without the sarcasm and the flippant wit.

Starting with Jesus is no more the son of God than me or you. Men, you are all sons of God, ladies, you are all daughters of God. Look and read your Torah.

What Jesus was was aware of what humanity is: God within creation, and fully aware of what this means and how to live it out. We are the incarnation of God within the world. This is what we were created to be.

The rest of us are more like Rama, trying to do what is right and sometimes doing exactly the opposite, especially when it counts the most.

Unfortunately when we do screw it up, there is no one to come to us and yell at us, don't do that, you're God incarnate. And our language of describing Jesus as "God's only" would get in the way of Christians believing anyway.

Thankfully, many of us have those who love us, and like Sita, go through the fire for us.

There is not a word I can ever write about God which is True. Every word I write about God contains Truth. The Truth of my reaching for an understanding of God, the Truth of my sharing of that journey. The same may be said of the Gospel authors, the authors of Torah, Qoran, all the Sutras, Vedas, etc. All we write about God contains the Truth of our search for an understanding of God, the Truth of our sharing that search, and no more.

Jesus, Krshna, Siddhartha, all tried to tell us: we ARE. Live. Love. Give. Jesus, Sita both teach us that suffering is not a punishment from God and by enduring it out of Love we sanctify it. Krshna teaches us that God is accepting of our anger at God for not stopping the senseless wars, pain and suffering.

These were people who were accepting in the core of their being that they and all of us are God within creation. We need to be like Rama and Sita and let our lives be lived in our accepting belief.

Incarnation of God

Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:18:16 GMT

We Christians are taught that Jesus of Nazareth is God's only begotten son. I'm going to put aside a lot of questions about this to ask a specific and rather unorthodox one:

Since God created us male and female, and said it was good, where is God's only begotten Daughter?

Are we to wait for her? Where are the prophecies? Or do we already have them?

I know why God became a man. In Jesus' time, no one would have listened to a woman. It wasn't considered proper for a woman to study Torah. All you have to do is to pay attention to how little respect Mary of Magdala gets, yet she is apostle to the apostles.

What is interesting is that in the Sanātana Dharma, when ever God becomes incarnate, God does so as both man and woman. Krshna and Rukmini and Rama and Sita. God as incarnate is only perfect when in a relationship.

Considering that the Trinitarian nature of God is thought to be formed of relationship through the outpouring of total and unconditional Love, I wonder if the followers of the Sanātana Dharma don't have something important to teach us, especially considering the nature of the second person of the Trinity. Especially since God is understood to be neither male nor female but rather that both female and male are to be found within God.

Perhaps God has more surprises for us. No one I know of is waiting for God's only begotten daughter. Then, again, no one was waiting for God's only begotten son when Jesus was born.

From my father on my reflections on scripture and metaphor

Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:54:01 GMT

My Dad sent me the following response to my musings, which I'm happy to share with all who come to this blog:

There is but one point to Jesus' preaching, rather to his being and that is summed up in the statement that, "I have come that you may have life and have it in the fullest". Rather than a set of command or instructions for how to behave rightly the premise is that only God has life and only God knows what life is and how it must be lived to be genuine.

Jesus, in fact the totality of revelation is to this singular point. God wants us to be alive and the only way to be that is to live like God who gives without seeking recognition or recompense or return, or thanks (something religions often miss), rather God gives freely and it is we who are compelled in our psyche to give thanks and praise. Simple people living with a joyous acceptance and sharing of life for the sake of other rather than themselves are without need of religious structure in deep communion with God in life.

All religious thought and language is a poor attempt to frame in human thought that which is to be lived and accepted. In the words of Matthew (whoever he was) not Jesus there is an attempt to say that unless sharing the gift and gifts of existence is a common and natural as breathing (not extraordinary at all) we have not yet got how the Father lives and how we must.

Since we will never achieve this we depend on God's action to bring us to fullness of life (salvation).

Thanks, Dad.

Jesus and Krshna, more on metaphor within scripture

Fri, 06 Mar 2009 04:12:05 GMT

"Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing." Again, I return to looking at Matthew's Gospel looking at the metaphors and trying to get at the nuances without anything but my intuition and prayer.

Dangerous for a Roman Catholic, no?

In any event, I really believe that the key to understanding this is to look outside of Yeshua's teaching. In fact, I'm going to step outside of the Hebraic culture he came from and look at the advice Krshna gave to a troubled warrior.

Yes, yes, I know, this quote from Yeshua is prefaced by the explanation of don't do things so that the doing is known, do them because you are doing a righteous deed.

Krshna's advice is much the same, "Make all deeds an act of worship." Krshna also picks up on the idea of unownership of one's deeds that Jesus is advocating. After all, he (and yes he IS prone to hyperbole) is advocating doing righteous deeds so that no one, not even yourself is aware of the deed.

Awareness isn't so much the issue as is the show about it. The deed should be done without any hoopla. With out any expectation of notice, praise or reward. The doing is its own reward.

What about the results of the doing?

Here is where Krshna steps in and adds to my understanding of things. "Action ( with a selfish motive ) is far inferior to this Yoga in the form of equanimity. You do seek refuge in this equipoise of mind, Arjuna; for poor and wretched are those who are instrumental in making their actions bear fruits." And, from slightly earlier, "Your right is to work only, but never to the fruit thereof. Be not instrumental in making your actions bear fruit, nor let your attachment be to inaction."

So, do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing. Let God worry about the outcome of your actions. It is enough that you acted.

This surrender of the fruits of our labor to God is a wonderful extension of what Jesus is trying to get his followers to understand, that we must listen to God's word (know Torah) and act on our understanding, for His glory. Our action is a gift, and it is not to us to dictate the outcome. Who gives a child a toy and then dictates to that child how to play with it? So, when we deny ourselves the knowledge of our charitable works by simply doing the right thing and moving on, we complete this by letting God take our deeds and mixing them into the fabric of His creation.

So, in our unknowing, we surrender the outcome of our deeds to God, and as God brings this about, often in ways beyond our ability to know, I find that this brings a fullness to the metaphor that Yeshua used.

Meditation on scripture as metaphor part 4

Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:49:28 GMT

So, did Jesus sin in his anger?

Lets look at another part of the same sermon: (Still working with the Jerusalem translation of Matthew)

If your right eye should be your downfall, tear it out and throw it away; for it will do you less harm to lose one part of yourself than to have your whole body thrown into hell.
And if your right hand should be your downfall, cut it off and throw it away; for it will do you less harm to lose one part of yourself than to have your whole body go to hell.

One's hand, one's eye can not be the cause of sin. They are not the cause of anyone's downfall. And Jesus was perfectly aware of this. He is prone to hyperbole, as were all the Jews of his epoch. His audience would have understood all of this which we miss because we don't think in the metaphor of a first century Jew. Nor can we, though I've tried to use hyperbole in the same way Jesus did in the third part of this meditation.

Metaphor - he's not instructing us to mutilate ourselves, he's instructing us to cast off our reactions, discard our reflexes, which are an intrinsic part of us. He's asking us to make certain that when we act, we act rightly.

Look at the stanza that precedes this:

'You have heard how it was said, You shall not commit adultery.
But I say this to you, if a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

It is impossible for any heterosexual man to look at a woman without looking at her lustfully without a lot of self discipline. (the grammar of that sentence is weird, but I think it is the best way to phrase that thought) Same can be said for a hetrosexual woman looking at a handsome man, etc. And even then, there are times when self discipline fails you. We're called to cast off those thoughts instead of savoring them. This is the eye to cut out.

So going back to anger: anger at a person is murder, cast if off as if were poison.

What about anger at an action? Is it possible to be angry at an action without being angry at the person?

Yes, but it is hard.

Going all the way back to the first part of this meditation, it all comes down to motive. That is something for which we as creatures are often unaware.

In order to act properly and without sin, it is therefor necessary to be self aware. For then you can see the beauty of woman (or man) without desire, you can see the despicable act without becoming angry at the person, just the deed.

The entire sermon on the mount comes down to this: be aware of your thoughts and reactions and discard those that lead you to wrong doings. Make every act an act of worship, and when you make a mistake, ask for forgiveness from those whom you wronged.

The fun part is that if he'd spoken those words to an audience of first century Jews, they wouldn't have paid him any attention. He had to couch it in their shared metaphor. Back then you made things clear by not speaking plainly.

The most interesting scripture I've ever read that concerns itself with the issue of how to act so that every action is an act of devotion is the Bhagavadgîtâ, specifically chapter 3. In my next part of this meditation, I'll be looking at the metaphor within the Bhagavadgîtâ.

About f'n time

Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:14:53 GMT

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090204/EU.Vatican.Jews/

ATICAN CITY — The Vatican on Wednesday demanded that a prelate who denied the Holocaust recant his positions before being fully admitted as a bishop into the Roman Catholic Church.

It also said Pope Benedict XVI had not known about Bishop Richard Williamson's views when he agreed to lift his excommunication and that of three other ultraconservative bishops Jan. 21.

The Vatican's Secretariat of State issued the statement a day after German Chancellor Angela Merkel urged the pope to make a clearer rejection of Holocaust denials, saying there had not been adequate clarification from the church.

The Holy See on Jan. 24 announced the rehabilitation of four bishops excommunicated in 1988 after being consecrated without papal consent.

Just days before, Williamson had been shown on Swedish state television saying historical evidence "is hugely against 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed" during World War II.

Williamson has since apologized to the German-born pope for having stirred controversy, but he did not repudiate his comments, in which he also said only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews were killed during World War II and none were gassed.

Though the Vatican said it did not share Williamson's views, Jewish groups voiced outrage at his rehabilitation and demanded the prelate recant.

Williamson and the three other bishops were consecrated by the late ultraconservative Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who in 1969 founded the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X opposed to the liberalizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council, including its outreach to Jews.

The Vatican said Wednesday that, while Williamson's excommunication had been lifted, he still had no canonical function in the church because he was consecrated illegitimately.

"Bishop Williamson, in order to be admitted to episcopal functions within the church, will have to take his distance, in an absolutely unequivocal and public fashion, from his position on the Shoah, which the Holy Father was not aware of when the excommunication was lifted," the statement said. The Shoah is the Hebrew term for the Holocaust.

Jewish groups welcomed the Vatican statement, saying it satisfied their key demand.

"This was the sign the Jewish world has been waiting for," said Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress.

Elan Steinberg, vice president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, thanked Merkel for her "righteous comments" and said the process to heal the "deep wound that this crisis caused to the Catholic-Jewish dialogue" could now begin.

Williamson's interview on Swedish state TV was aired Jan. 21. The decree lifting his excommunication bore the same date, although it was not announced until three days later. The broadcaster said the timing was a coincidence, but Williamson has expressed his views about the Holocaust previously.

Wednesday's statement was a remarkable turnabout by the Vatican, which had considered the Williamson case "closed" after Benedict issued a lengthy denunciation of Holocaust deniers last week and the society itself distanced itself from Williamson's views.

On Jan. 28, the pope said he felt "full and indisputable solidarity" with Jews, and warned against any denial of the full horror of the Nazi genocide.

The Vatican's secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, cited those comments Tuesday in telling the newspaper of the Italian bishops' conference Avvenire that, as far as he was concerned, "the question can be considered closed."

Yet the pressure continued, including from Roman Catholic leaders in Benedict's native Germany and Merkel's comments Tuesday.

It was not immediately clear if the Vatican's newest statement Wednesday satisfied Merkel.

"The chancellor has spoken and has nothing to add to her comments from yesterday," her spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm told reporters in Berlin.

In addition to its demand of Williamson, the Vatican also said society as a whole must fully recognize the teachings of Vatican II and of all popes who came during and after it in order to have a legitimate canonical function in the church.

There was no answer to several calls placed Wednesday to Williamson's home in La Reya, Argentina.

Scripture as metaphor part 3

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:18:52 GMT

Yeshua compared anger with killing, as quoted by Matthew:

"You have heard how it was said to our ancestors, You shall not kill; and if anyone does kill he must answer for it before the court. But I say this to you, anyone who is angry with a brother will answer for it before the court; anyone who calls a brother "Fool" will answer for it before the Sanhedrin; and anyone who calls him "Traitor" will answer for it in hell fire."

This one passage does so many things it makes my mind spin.

First, it places the onus on people who make others angry to beg their forgiveness, in no part because we have made them guilty of murder. So much for "I am not my brother's keeper".

Second, it places the onus on us to seek forgiveness when we are angry before we even think about going to God.

These are lovely pastoral instructions for people to live a Godly life. Most people never go further than this. They are the blessed.

However, Yeshua kicks the observant listener/reader in the teeth.

If it is ungodly to be angry, then all those actions in scripture that were recorded as being done by an angry God were not done by God in anger.

He's thrown Israeli history as understood conventionally even to this day by many Jews and Christians under the bus.

He's demanding without demanding that we think of scripture not so much as God's word to us, but our words about and reaching towards God. Do we find God's word in scripture?

Yes.

But no more so than we find blasphemy.

God bless Yeshua of Nazareth. I'm starting to understand why he made so many intelligent people angry with him.

Yes, Yeshua is guilty of making people angry, so by his words, he is guilty of killing. Incidentally, he was dragged before the Sanhedrin, and condemned for it. Incidentally, in his own words, this would make him guilty of sin.

Like I said, my head is spinning, but my heart is clear, for I also remember that he begged for God to forgive them.

Scripture as metaphor part two

Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:39:20 GMT

Do not do murder? I can almost hear the laughter regarding some of the points I made, after all, what does harvesting a potato have to do with murder? Isn't murder reserved for the killing of humans?

Maybe.

I'd prefer to limit murder to the deliberate killing of a sentient being other than for reasons of self defense.

OK.

Isn't Homo Sapiens Sapiens the only sentient being we know about?

Maybe.

Sentience is most commonly understood as the ability to feel or perceive subjectively. We know animals can do this. Bears have been observed taking note of an especially beautiful sunset, etc.

We don't know if plants can do this.

Yeshua ben Yusef (Jesus of Nazareth) was an excellent teacher of Torah, and taught to build a fence around Torah. I can almost hear him say:

"Amen I say to you, you have heard it said, 'Do not perform murder,' yet I say if you think about killing your neighbor, you have committed murder."

That fits well with his teachings.

In fact, it is recorded in Matthew that he said:

"You have heard how it was said to our ancestors, You shall not kill(Jerusalem translation - and I have no idea how accurate); and if anyone does kill he must answer for it before the court. But I say this to you, anyone who is angry with a brother will answer for it before the court; anyone who calls a brother "Fool" will answer for it before the Sanhedrin; and anyone who calls him "Traitor" will answer for it in hell fire. So then, if you are bringing your offering to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar, go and be reconciled with your brother first, and then come back and present your offering. Come to terms with your opponent in good time while you are still on the way to the court with him, or he may hand you over to the judge and the judge to the officer, and you will be thrown into prison. In truth I tell you, you will not get out till you have paid the last penny."

So, if we're to avoid murder, we must avoid even thinking of it, we must avoid anger. By avoiding the taking of life of animals, we build a better fence around this important commandment. By the avoiding the deliberate taking of life, we build an even better fence.

Yet we must eat, and Torah commanded the consumption of certain foods at certain times, and Yeshua did not abstain from eating the flesh of animals. There are guidelines within Torah on how to slaughter an animal. They turn out to be very humane when followed.

Yeshua commanded us to consume him. Not literally, but metaphorically. And he let himself be killed.

It is not death we're avoiding, nor killing, it is murder, which involves intent and motive - things only God can see/understand.

So, when we kill an animal the way the Torah instructs, and if we kill an animal to sustain us or protect us, then we do not commit murder. We must not kill an animal out of anger. I would argue that perhaps we should also not kill a plant out of anger - and worry about weeding.

If we kill a plant or animal for sport, out of anger, or for other reasons that have nothing to do with our need for food/protection, that may or may not be murder.

I am not God, I am not wise, and those who are wise differ greatly on these issues.

There is one other fence we should wisely build:

In his epistle, St. John wrote: "Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you are well aware that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him."

We must certainly avoid hate. Ironically, hate seems reserved for our fellow humans. I have yet to know of anyone who hates plants or animals, though I've known those who treat animals cruelly.

And we certainly should not go to Eucharist when our brothers have anything against us.

Metaphor

Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:08:10 GMT

It is hard, very hard for most people to grasp that a sentence such as: "You shall not kill" is a metaphor.

Let me take a step backwards, and look at the issue of translation. The sentence is more properly translated as "Do not commit murder". No wonder I've agree with the sentiment that "translation is a lie".

Now, what killing is murder, and what killing is not murder? If I step on a bug by mistake, is that murder? If I ingest a paramecium in a glass of water, is that murder? If I pull up and boil a potato, is that murder?

We have the responsibility for setting the boundaries on when killing is murder. Society usually encodes this as a set of laws, but even then there are ambiguities.

Society is not necessarily right in where boundaries are set. There are unjust laws.

So this simple statement becomes a metaphor for the moral taking of a life, where each of us must understand in our hearts what is murder, and what is not, for we all kill, even when we don't intend to. Jainism aside as a lofty ideal, it is impossible to live without killing.

Thus there are conditions under which taking a life is not murder, and I will be held accountable to abiding by them as I kill in the living of my life. As there are unjust laws, the laws of a society are just a guide, and may need to be disregarding to live a just and good life, though in the doing so, I must always remember that I will be held accountable for any breach of law, no matter how unjust.

A Mini Enlightenment

Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:07:05 GMT

All religious language is metaphor. Truth is not found in the words, but in the understanding of the metaphor.

What child is this

Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:21:03 GMT

We are creatures of love, children of the Lord, conceived in passion. Our births are nothing short of miracles, our lives begin through the sacrifice of others.

This is what we are reminded of each year as we celebrate Christmas.

We are the Incarnation. We are the Resurrection. It is in us that He comes again into this world.

So let us take care that no child is conceived without love. Let us take care that no child grows without the willing sacrifice of the mother. Let us celebrate each miracle, let us treat each other with the full knowledge that how we treat each other is how we treat the Lord within the world.

Moving towards a personal credo

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:43:09 GMT

So, what would be your reaction if I told you Jesus was not perfect. He said so himself (Matthew)

"And now a man came to him and asked, 'Master, what good deed must I do to possess eternal life?'

Jesus said to him, 'Why do you ask me about what is good? There is one alone who is good. But if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.'"

It shouldn't surprise me that Jesus admitted to not being perfect. After all, he was a man. Even if he is God incarnate, yet still a man. Not a woman. Not that to be a woman is perfect, but both are made in God's image, and without being both, perfection is not possible. This is why the Greeks thought hermaphrodites to be special. They were on the right track but got trapped in rather limited thinking. Jesus would need to be all the people that ever are, were, and will be, be all things, all creatures great and small, and still fall short of the perfection and the infinite that is God, for all these things are created, all are finite, and Jesus was finite. We know he couldn't read, we know he didn't know the Earth is round, we know he didn't know when the end of the Earth will be. Jesus wasn't all knowing, however he knew the Torah. He didn't even have infinite patience. He lost his temper more than once, begged to let the cup of his passing pass untouched, and depended on the faith of others to work miracles (though I believe that is the key to understanding who Jesus is). Yet he gave the perfect sacrifice: himself. We can all do the same. Give ourselves, answer our calling.

So, what would your reaction be if I told you that he was not the messiah? After all, none of the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled during his life. Not one. In Matthew, when the followers of John the baptiser came to him and asked him, he did not tell them he was the Messiah. He forbade his disciples to tell others he was the Messiah.

And yet in John it is recorded that to the Samaritan woman, Jesus said he was the Messiah. His followers, the disciples, the apostles, all claim the title Messiah for him. And if you did deeply enough, you find that the prophets actually proclaim the coming of multiple messiahs. So, perhaps, after all that, Jesus is a messiah.

Yes, I believe that Jesus is God's son. Then again, in Deuteronomy 14, we are told that we are all God's children.

Would your conclusion be that I had lost my faith and was no longer a Christian?

Other than wishing that the name of my religion was not Christianity, which I consider to be sadly ironic, I am still very much a disciple of the Rabbi Yeshua. His teaching challenge me.

Do I believe he is God incarnate? Yes. To me it is the only explanation that fits. Do I believe that this was the only time God became one of us? No. I no longer believe that. I've read too much of the Buddha, of Krshna, to think that.

Does this make me a Buddhist, do I follow his Dharma, the buddha-dharma? Or am I a follower of the Sanātana Dharma? Should I seek to practice Bhakti Yoga, or perhaps Karma Yoga, Raja Yoga or even Jnana Yoga?

It is Torah that Jesus, Rabbi Yeshua taught, not the buddha-dharma nor the Sanātana Dharma, and I am a disciple of Jesus.

So I will try to do as he instructed in Matthew: keep the commandments.

Now, let me explain myself regarding God working through our faith to perform miracles. God works miracles only through our faith, precisely because God gave us freedom of will. If we do not will it, it will not be. How often did Jesus remind the healed that it was their faith, not him, that had healed those who were healed? Every time. Jesus didn't heal the sick, the sick healed themselves through their faith in Jesus.

After all, are we not all the Children of God? Would that we had the faith in ourselves that Jesus did. Perhaps all sin is merely a failure of faith.

That periodic crisis

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:55:03 GMT

Heya,

I'm struggling with the issue of how some one who chooses to be married and have children can follow the teachings of Yeshua (that's Jesus's real name, as best as can be rendered in English). I am suddenly not satisfied with any of the rationalizations that have been done over the years and would welcome a dialog on this issue from people with an open mind.

For starters, the reason for my having issue is the following:

καὶ ἰδοὺ εἷς προσελθὼν αὐτῶ εἶπεν, διδάσκαλε, τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω ἵνα σχῶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον;

ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῶ, τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός. εἰ δὲ θέλεις εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθεῖν, τήρησον τὰς ἐντολάς.

λέγει αὐτῶ, ποίας; ὁ δὲ ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, τὸ οὐ φονεύσεις, οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐ κλέψεις, οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις,

τίμα τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα, καί, ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν.

λέγει αὐτῶ ὁ νεανίσκος, πάντα ταῦτα ἐφύλαξα· τί ἔτι ὑστερῶ;

ἔφη αὐτῶ ὁ ἰησοῦς, εἰ θέλεις τέλειος εἶναι, ὕπαγε πώλησόν σου τὰ ὑπάρχοντα καὶ δὸς [τοῖς] πτωχοῖς, καὶ ἕξεις θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανοῖς, καὶ δεῦρο ἀκολούθει μοι.

ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ νεανίσκος τὸν λόγον ἀπῆλθεν λυπούμενος, ἦν γὰρ ἔχων κτήματα πολλά.

Or in English translation:

And now a man came to him and asked, 'Master, what good deed must I do to possess eternal life?'

Jesus said to him, 'Why do you ask me about what is good? There is one alone who is good. But if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.'

He said, 'Which ones?' Jesus replied, 'These: You shall not kill. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not give false witness.

Honour your father and your mother. You shall love your neighbour as yourself.'

The young man said to him, 'I have kept all these. What more do I need to do?'

Jesus said, 'If you wish to be perfect, go and sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.'

But when the young man heard these words he went away sad, for he was a man of great wealth.