In the current invasion of Gaza by Israel to root out and put an end to Hamas rocket attacks, I certainly don't stand in complete solidarity with Israel, but I am far more with Israel than whatever body their enemy chooses to inhabit. In all the coverage I've seen and the articles I've read, there are questions the mainstream media is shamefully not raising.
What are the Palestinian people doing, knowing that Israel's self-defense was inevitable, to stop the rockets being fired from homes with children in them, from schools, and so on? It's a deplorable tactic when you think about it. Hide artilery and use civilian facilities as launching pads so that when [reluctant] Israel takes action against these, they are villified for kiling children, and so on. Surely, Hamas and the landowners who lend use of their homes to Hamas (perhaps the childrens' own parents) are responsible for holding their children in front of them while they are being shot at. It's a ridiculous notion to hold Israel responsible for brutality when it is obviously the fault of the heartless others.
Why are Palestinians not separating themselves from Hamas? Why aren't Palestinians rising up against Hamas perpetrators to stop the Israeli defense campaign? Why do rockets continue to fly into Israel from Gaza, even while a ground force has gone in? Why aren't they getting as far away as possible from store houses and launching pads? Why are parents putting their children in harm's way, even sacrificing them?
With all the rallies happening around the world today, I doubt many people are looking at this conflict realistically. What should Israel do to defend itself against rocket attacks short of a ground invasion?
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Friday, January 09, 2009
Unprophetic Prophetic Events
This post follows: Part 1, Part 2
If we can guess at the beginning of the thousand year reign, corresponding with the rise of Charlegmagne, who "is regarded not only as the founding father of both French and German monarchies, but also as the father of Europe: his empire united most of Western Europe for the first time since the Romans, and the Carolingian renaissance encouraged the formation of a common European identity"*, then it is quite alarming that a man of equal historical importance rose to power a thousand years later.
Napoleon was a "French military and political leader who is considered one of the most influential figures in European history". Both are paramount historical figures, and one undoes what the other did. It's quite something to think about.
Having crowned himself Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and considering himself a successor to Caesar and Charlemagne, this fellow Napoleon is widely believed to have been a prophesied figure in Daniel 11:40. The verses surrounding tell the story of his conquest remarkably. And did you know that Napoleon actually issused the proclamation of a Jewish state in Palestine in 1799? Thought it did not come to much fruition, this is thought to have planted the seed for a modern Israeli state. Additionally, in 1798, Napoleon overthrew the papacy and exiled the pope, riding on the wave of 'freedom from religion' adamant of the French Revolution. Napoleon is undoubtedly a significant, if not prophetic, player in the end-time drama.
Just prior to Napoleon's conquest, America was born (1776). Considered by many to be a Christian nation, it is also considered by many to be a nation founded on occultic and masonic principles (and agendas). One need look no further than the Statue of Liberty (shining light to every nation...), and the Great Seal on the back of the dollar bill (the occultic pyramid with the shining eye at the top), to see that perhaps this had something to do with the release of the "light-bearing one" from his prison cell. One may take into consideration that, if this was his release, his foremost agenda is deception, and it is widely accepted that the US is a Christian nation (can there be a Christian nation? is this seen to be the "kingdom" Christ is building?)
Jumping ahead to the 20th Century, and the earth is engulfed in the most horrific span of 50 years in its history. World War I, fought from 1914 to 1918, "was unprecedented in scale and intensity, with more men fighting and more casualties in action than any war before. Over 60 million soldiers took part. The war claimed over 40 million casualties, including approximately 20 million civilian and military dead." Unprecedented war and carnage. Unprecedented use of military technology and machinery.
Still in the healing stage, Europe was thrust into an even worse world war which was brought about by the Hitler agenda. Here we have a historical and evil figure of utmost importance seeming to fall short of mention in prophecy. He, of course, famous for the concentration camps which snuffed out 6 million Jewish lives, not to mention the others he had everyone hating. Unprophesied? Is this not the worst experience in Israel's existence?
Towards the end of the war, US President Truman called fire down from the heavens (see Revelation 13:13) onto Japan in the devastating and regrettable attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The first use of atomic weaponry amounted to 220,000 human vaporizations and a dangerous precedent.
World War II "involved the mobilisation of over 100 million military personnel, making it the most widespread war in history... Over 70 million people, the majority of them civilians, were killed, making it the deadliest conflict in human history."
Wait, there's more! After WWI, the League of Nations was set up as a sort of med$iator and court of nations. After WWII, the United Nations took its place in an effort to "facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights and achieving world peace". It would be seen by many as a form of world government with power growing over time.
Within its first few years of operation, the United Nations would vote to bring into being the modern State of Israel (May 14, 1948). It seems so logical to connect the outcomes of such unprecedented and horrific atrocities of the World Wars to the prophetic outcomes they produced: the formation of supranational power, and the proclamation of a modern Israeli state. These are the most important events we look for in Bible prophecy to preceed the Lord's coming! Yet nothing in Revelation or Daniel or anywhere else for that matter foretold it?
Either we totally missed it in Scripture, our eyes are closed to it supernaturally, or we are in the Luciferian-spree age after the 1,000-year reign and most of the events in Revelation took place prior to Charlegmagne. A graver option, the events in Revelation are yet to come but dwarf the events we've seen so far.
Can we know?
Thursday, January 08, 2009
The Millennial Reign - Part 2
(Click here for Part 1)
Prior to the fulfillment of prophecy, thousands of theories swirl about. I have seen people prove that many people in history and in the present are the antichrist, and they make good cases as to why. Indeed, on this side of fulfillment, our best is guesses, but some are better than others of course, and some are plain illogical.
I admit that post-millennialism has a tough time navigating Revelation and other prophetic books, but I'm only stating my points insomuch as they make sense, and pointing out where contrary beliefs don't make sense.
It is difficult to know whether we are to read Revelation from a Gentile perspective, a Jewish perspective, or to see no difference in perspectives. For instance, perhaps the establishment of the State of Israel (1948) could be the beginning of the Kingdom of Heaven being set up on earth. In fact, most pre-milleniallists believe this is true. However, a Jewish perspective would say that many "woes" have passed in order to get to that point, and more "woes" would come to bring about Armageddon and the coming of Messiah. They may see the Holocaust and the horrific World Wars in Revelation (if they accepted it as a prophetic book, and many do). When you think about it, how could the greatest single genocide in Jewish history be completely un-foretold? How could Hitler not be an antichrist figure? How could two monumental, all-encompassing wars not make the cut? And how could the wealthiest and most powerful nation to ever exist also go un-prophesied (USA)? We have to consider that some of these must be in the Book.
Perhaps some woes have passed. From the Jewish perspective, perhaps the "Harvest of the Earth" was the Holocaust. Indeed, the murder of 6 million Jews was instrumental in bringing about the establishment of the modern State of Israel, and the capture of Jerusalem, from which Messiah will rule the world.
Maybe the things of Revelation that don't seem to have happened yet will take place over a longer time period than we think, like from the time of the release of Lucifer (if we suppose he was released to decieve the nations as the Holy Roman Empire came to a close around 1800). Or perhaps from the beginning of the 20th century when Zionism took form and world wars began occurring.
One of the other points I'd like to make concerns the logic that pre-millennialism projects into the future. If we suppose Christ returns to earth in body form, and in his coming, all of his enemies are destroyed, then we are to presume the 1,000 years on earth will be a continuation of the faithful on the earth, whether dying and procreating, we don't know. 1,000 years of Christ in person, a glorious, perfect reign without an enemy in sight. Virtually heaven on earth.
Then Satan is released and is allowed to attempt to deceive those who live on the earth. Revelation doesn't say that Jesus leaves earth, and it doesn't say that Satan manifests visibly. So how is this deception supposed to happen? If both are present physically, Jesus could not be countered without the ability to tell the Truth. If both are present spiritually, we have a bit of a probability! In fact, deception takes place in the realm of "belief".
Satan must be given quite some time to do his deceptive work, because he marches against Jerusalem for the battle of Gog with an army of millions. This would not be possible, I imagine, with Christ present physically on earth. And if Christ were to leave for this deception to take place, would he not take his perfected saints with him? And who would be left for him to deceive? And moreover, who would be left for Satan and his hoarde to fight against? It just doesn't make sense.
Pre-millennialists need not expect a mass-resurrection nor a mass-judgment at this return of Christ, if they are correct. Both of these occur after the 1,000 year reign and permanent defeat of Satan. The New Jerusalem also comes down then. To them, we are nowhere near these events, but their chatter would make you think otherwise.
The idea of patron saints comes up when you consider that Christ possibly reigned over the earth vicariously through the papacy (obedient popes or not...) in the HRE. Revelation 20 says that those who had died in the name of Jesus and had not partaken in the kingdom of the Beast were with Christ to reign and judge the earth for a thousand years. In other places, Jesus would speak of this person being given charge over ten cities (and so on), and we can begin to see that perhaps the unbelievable acquisition of power over all the earth by the office of the popes had some bearing in the parellel spirit world. Christians known for miracles and who had other fruits of being close with the King were canonized by the papacy and named as spiritual rulers of cities. Indeed, as it was when Satan ruled, prior to the victory of Christ (see Daniel 10:13), so it was with Christ where powers and principalities were acquired and new, good rulers were put in the place of the evil predecessors.
I find it astounding that the papacy came to such power and held it for so long. How could the bishop of Rome be brought to such heights - the heighest earthly height - apart from the conquest of Christ over the powers that reigned previously? And what do we call His reign if not the Thousand Year Reign?
Prior to the fulfillment of prophecy, thousands of theories swirl about. I have seen people prove that many people in history and in the present are the antichrist, and they make good cases as to why. Indeed, on this side of fulfillment, our best is guesses, but some are better than others of course, and some are plain illogical.
I admit that post-millennialism has a tough time navigating Revelation and other prophetic books, but I'm only stating my points insomuch as they make sense, and pointing out where contrary beliefs don't make sense.
It is difficult to know whether we are to read Revelation from a Gentile perspective, a Jewish perspective, or to see no difference in perspectives. For instance, perhaps the establishment of the State of Israel (1948) could be the beginning of the Kingdom of Heaven being set up on earth. In fact, most pre-milleniallists believe this is true. However, a Jewish perspective would say that many "woes" have passed in order to get to that point, and more "woes" would come to bring about Armageddon and the coming of Messiah. They may see the Holocaust and the horrific World Wars in Revelation (if they accepted it as a prophetic book, and many do). When you think about it, how could the greatest single genocide in Jewish history be completely un-foretold? How could Hitler not be an antichrist figure? How could two monumental, all-encompassing wars not make the cut? And how could the wealthiest and most powerful nation to ever exist also go un-prophesied (USA)? We have to consider that some of these must be in the Book.
Perhaps some woes have passed. From the Jewish perspective, perhaps the "Harvest of the Earth" was the Holocaust. Indeed, the murder of 6 million Jews was instrumental in bringing about the establishment of the modern State of Israel, and the capture of Jerusalem, from which Messiah will rule the world.
Maybe the things of Revelation that don't seem to have happened yet will take place over a longer time period than we think, like from the time of the release of Lucifer (if we suppose he was released to decieve the nations as the Holy Roman Empire came to a close around 1800). Or perhaps from the beginning of the 20th century when Zionism took form and world wars began occurring.
One of the other points I'd like to make concerns the logic that pre-millennialism projects into the future. If we suppose Christ returns to earth in body form, and in his coming, all of his enemies are destroyed, then we are to presume the 1,000 years on earth will be a continuation of the faithful on the earth, whether dying and procreating, we don't know. 1,000 years of Christ in person, a glorious, perfect reign without an enemy in sight. Virtually heaven on earth.
Then Satan is released and is allowed to attempt to deceive those who live on the earth. Revelation doesn't say that Jesus leaves earth, and it doesn't say that Satan manifests visibly. So how is this deception supposed to happen? If both are present physically, Jesus could not be countered without the ability to tell the Truth. If both are present spiritually, we have a bit of a probability! In fact, deception takes place in the realm of "belief".
Satan must be given quite some time to do his deceptive work, because he marches against Jerusalem for the battle of Gog with an army of millions. This would not be possible, I imagine, with Christ present physically on earth. And if Christ were to leave for this deception to take place, would he not take his perfected saints with him? And who would be left for him to deceive? And moreover, who would be left for Satan and his hoarde to fight against? It just doesn't make sense.
Pre-millennialists need not expect a mass-resurrection nor a mass-judgment at this return of Christ, if they are correct. Both of these occur after the 1,000 year reign and permanent defeat of Satan. The New Jerusalem also comes down then. To them, we are nowhere near these events, but their chatter would make you think otherwise.
The idea of patron saints comes up when you consider that Christ possibly reigned over the earth vicariously through the papacy (obedient popes or not...) in the HRE. Revelation 20 says that those who had died in the name of Jesus and had not partaken in the kingdom of the Beast were with Christ to reign and judge the earth for a thousand years. In other places, Jesus would speak of this person being given charge over ten cities (and so on), and we can begin to see that perhaps the unbelievable acquisition of power over all the earth by the office of the popes had some bearing in the parellel spirit world. Christians known for miracles and who had other fruits of being close with the King were canonized by the papacy and named as spiritual rulers of cities. Indeed, as it was when Satan ruled, prior to the victory of Christ (see Daniel 10:13), so it was with Christ where powers and principalities were acquired and new, good rulers were put in the place of the evil predecessors.
I find it astounding that the papacy came to such power and held it for so long. How could the bishop of Rome be brought to such heights - the heighest earthly height - apart from the conquest of Christ over the powers that reigned previously? And what do we call His reign if not the Thousand Year Reign?
The Millennial Reign - Part 1
There are few Christians who view the 1000-year reign of Christ as something that has already happened. Not so few to make it an obscure, irrelevent theology, but it is certainly heavier on the other side of the argument. Those who view the coming of Christ to set up his Kingdom on earth should not expect the marriage of the Lamb and the transfer of the New Jerusalem from heaven to earth until after the thousand years are up, and after the devil has had his last kick of the can. Check it out, it's in the last chapters of the Bible.
I'm of the opinion that perhaps the millennial reign is behind us, and here are some reasons why:
> Up until Jesus' crucifixion, Satan was the ruler of earth, influencing if not controlling the rulers of the people. Jesus called him the "prince of this world" (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11), and Daniel 10:13 gives us an example of how Satan and his cronies ruled vicariously thru the manifest ruler. After Jesus was raised from the dead, he had this to say: all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (Matt 28:18). Pre-Millenialists must account for almost 2000 years of quiet from this new ruler of the world, Jesus. Did the resurrection change nothing on earth?
> There was a succession of great empires including Egypt, Assyria, Bablyon, Persia, and Rome, which were the "big ones" as far as wealth and power go. These are the ones God speaks about extensively in prophecy, especially in Daniel. After the Roman lineage of emperors, there hasn't been a [secular] kingdom or nation to rival it (until more modern times).
> It is extraordinary to consider that the church of Christ, the people of faith (or at least the institution of this faith) was set up to be a political powerhouse and the literal ruler of the nations in the middle ages. By this, I am referring to the time leading up to and including the Holy Roman Empire. Isaac Newton (though not a proponent of post-millenialism) referred to the papacy as "being exalted above kings & declared by a council above all humane judicature & the supreme judge of all men, he has reigned ever since with a peculiar soul & a look more stout then the rest of his fellows". Pope Leo III resurrected the Roman Empire on 25 December 800 by crowning Charlegmagne the Imperator Augustus, or Emperor (the early Roman Empire ceased in 476 AD). This set a new course for the papacy, the "vicar of Rome", and would eventually lead to the development of the Holy Roman Empire, which would end under Napoleon in 1806. Yes, about 1,000 years after the crowning of Charlegmagne.Strange eh? I used the title "vicar" intentionally, as I perceive the millennial reign of Christ to be of the same sort as his predecessor, Lucifer, who did not rule in person, but rather by influence and by the allegiance of certain rulers - vicariously. In the case of Christ, the papacy.
> The Napoleonic Wars brought down the HRE in 1806, shortly after the "enlightenment" movement began. Indeed, the conquest of Napoleon (a prophetic fulfillment himself) was something just following the violent French Revolution. In bringing in the "Age of Reason", the age of an sometimes-abusive and corrupt reign of the church (the Pope's had every ability to be drawn away from their Lord, just as the King's of Israel) was brought to an end. As the age of reason has continued and has worked itself out more and more since its conception, the relevence of the Church (especially the RC) has dwindled (especially in Europe).
> The Age of Enlightenment brought to the forefront societal endeavors like science, which has lead to some amazing discoveries and amazing technology, which will no doubt be put into use by the end-time ruler, the Beast (who calls "fire" down from the heavens, and can have a "mark" on all of humanity which is used to buy and sell, and so on). The idea of light representing the age has much affinity with the resurrection of the occult and of a Luciferian agenda (Lucifer is the "light-bearing one" and "son of the morning"). Perhaps more fitting than a resurrection to power would be this verse: When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. Rev 20:7-8. That's right, Gog and Magog. Most pre-millennialists place the famous end-time war of Gog and Magog at the return of Christ to set up his Kingdom. They've got a LOT to say about this war being set up in our time via Russia and Putin.
> Many eschatologists view the events of Revelation to be only happening in the end time, in that none of the events can take place before then, or over a long course of time. However, they commonly take parts of it and place them in the past, and have said they were fulfilled. This is true for the "Woman and the Dragon" in Chapter 12, which is said to represent Israel giving birth to Christ, who was sought by the devil (to kill him). Perhaps the events of Revelation can take place over time, or at different times. This same section speaks of a war that broke out in heaven after Christ went back to heaven, and it ended with Satan being cast down to earth. Hmmm... and "he knows that his time is short" (12:12). Is a third of Biblical time (2000 years) "short"? No. Were his powers over the earth overthrown at some later date? We know from the Bible, Revelation in fact, that he set up a throne on Earth.
"I know where you live—where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city—where Satan lives. Revelation 2:13
Part 2
I'm of the opinion that perhaps the millennial reign is behind us, and here are some reasons why:
> Up until Jesus' crucifixion, Satan was the ruler of earth, influencing if not controlling the rulers of the people. Jesus called him the "prince of this world" (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11), and Daniel 10:13 gives us an example of how Satan and his cronies ruled vicariously thru the manifest ruler. After Jesus was raised from the dead, he had this to say: all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (Matt 28:18). Pre-Millenialists must account for almost 2000 years of quiet from this new ruler of the world, Jesus. Did the resurrection change nothing on earth?
> There was a succession of great empires including Egypt, Assyria, Bablyon, Persia, and Rome, which were the "big ones" as far as wealth and power go. These are the ones God speaks about extensively in prophecy, especially in Daniel. After the Roman lineage of emperors, there hasn't been a [secular] kingdom or nation to rival it (until more modern times).
> It is extraordinary to consider that the church of Christ, the people of faith (or at least the institution of this faith) was set up to be a political powerhouse and the literal ruler of the nations in the middle ages. By this, I am referring to the time leading up to and including the Holy Roman Empire. Isaac Newton (though not a proponent of post-millenialism) referred to the papacy as "being exalted above kings & declared by a council above all humane judicature & the supreme judge of all men, he has reigned ever since with a peculiar soul & a look more stout then the rest of his fellows". Pope Leo III resurrected the Roman Empire on 25 December 800 by crowning Charlegmagne the Imperator Augustus, or Emperor (the early Roman Empire ceased in 476 AD). This set a new course for the papacy, the "vicar of Rome", and would eventually lead to the development of the Holy Roman Empire, which would end under Napoleon in 1806. Yes, about 1,000 years after the crowning of Charlegmagne.Strange eh? I used the title "vicar" intentionally, as I perceive the millennial reign of Christ to be of the same sort as his predecessor, Lucifer, who did not rule in person, but rather by influence and by the allegiance of certain rulers - vicariously. In the case of Christ, the papacy.
> The Napoleonic Wars brought down the HRE in 1806, shortly after the "enlightenment" movement began. Indeed, the conquest of Napoleon (a prophetic fulfillment himself) was something just following the violent French Revolution. In bringing in the "Age of Reason", the age of an sometimes-abusive and corrupt reign of the church (the Pope's had every ability to be drawn away from their Lord, just as the King's of Israel) was brought to an end. As the age of reason has continued and has worked itself out more and more since its conception, the relevence of the Church (especially the RC) has dwindled (especially in Europe).
> The Age of Enlightenment brought to the forefront societal endeavors like science, which has lead to some amazing discoveries and amazing technology, which will no doubt be put into use by the end-time ruler, the Beast (who calls "fire" down from the heavens, and can have a "mark" on all of humanity which is used to buy and sell, and so on). The idea of light representing the age has much affinity with the resurrection of the occult and of a Luciferian agenda (Lucifer is the "light-bearing one" and "son of the morning"). Perhaps more fitting than a resurrection to power would be this verse: When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. Rev 20:7-8. That's right, Gog and Magog. Most pre-millennialists place the famous end-time war of Gog and Magog at the return of Christ to set up his Kingdom. They've got a LOT to say about this war being set up in our time via Russia and Putin.
> Many eschatologists view the events of Revelation to be only happening in the end time, in that none of the events can take place before then, or over a long course of time. However, they commonly take parts of it and place them in the past, and have said they were fulfilled. This is true for the "Woman and the Dragon" in Chapter 12, which is said to represent Israel giving birth to Christ, who was sought by the devil (to kill him). Perhaps the events of Revelation can take place over time, or at different times. This same section speaks of a war that broke out in heaven after Christ went back to heaven, and it ended with Satan being cast down to earth. Hmmm... and "he knows that his time is short" (12:12). Is a third of Biblical time (2000 years) "short"? No. Were his powers over the earth overthrown at some later date? We know from the Bible, Revelation in fact, that he set up a throne on Earth.
"I know where you live—where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city—where Satan lives. Revelation 2:13
Part 2
Points Against a Pre-Trib Rapture
As a continuation of my last post, where I made some points about Genesis-prophecies of a pre-tribulation rapture of sorts (in Noah and Lot), I thought I'd add a little about points for the "other side".
First, let me say that I don't think the stories of Noah and Lot prove a pre-tribulation rapture, nor was I meaning to say that they do. Simply, there are some seeming prophetic types for a pre-tribulation rapture. Questions to take from that post are: is it a saving from all end-time tribulation, or just the final big bang? is it a complete evacuation of earth by all the faithful, or simply vacating the "area" of tribulation (if some see the final bang as happening in Jerusalem or Rome, or wherever)? Indeed, in both cases the faithful were taken away from the area of disaster; in Noah's case, the area of disaster was the entire planet, and in Lot's an area of cities. Further research into the area of end-time disaster is clearly required.
Anyway, many end-time theorists utilize the words of Jesus about the end being a harvest, particularly in the Parable of the Sower in Matthew 13 (v 39: "the harvest is the end of the age"). The premise is basically that there are weeds sown in among the wheat, and that the Master does not want to uproot the weeds presently for fear of losing some of the good wheat. Instead, he leaves it to the end, and begins then by pulling up the weeds and throwing them into the fire. Then, the remaining wheat is harvested.
This speaks to me about a great persecution more than an escape from persecution actually. The acts of pulling up weeds and using a sickle to remove the wheat from its roots are both violent and involve pain for the plants, if they could feel pain. Is this in reference to some sort of end time delusion or mass-test? Those who will not die for the truth are kept alive on earth to face the final apocalypse, while those who die for Christ (are cut down, as the wheat is) are "harvested" into the arms of their Savior in heaven, and return later with him?
The end time is also prophetically symbolized by the "threshing floor", which is mentioned frequently in conjunction with a winepress in the Old Testament. Literally, sheaves were laid on the circular threshing floor, and were trodden by oxen hitched to a central pivotal point. To me, this process of separating the wheat from the chaff (not speaking of separating weeds from grain) speaks of a negative or persecutory experience for the "grain" or the believer. But the process is not ended there.
The second part of the process of the threshing floor takes into account the wind. The farmer uses a winnowing fork and begins to throw up the trodden mess into the air to be caught by the wind. "The wind would blow the lighter chaff to one side, while the heavier grain would fall into a pile, which could then be gathered." (more info). Now, this seems to be an implication of another "going up", and is very symbolic of some sort of rapture. The question remains whether this is the rapture experienced by a Christian upon death (the normal going to heaven; just so happens to be that all of the Christians are put to death around the same time), or a mass evacuation preceded by a test of some sort to see who is faithful. I would lean towards a large-scale persecution, a mass abandonment of the faith (as predicted in Matthew 24:10-12), and a removal of the faithful by martyrdom - the gathering of the Lord.
"Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe." Revelation 14:15
The above verse from Revelation is from a section called "The Harvest of the Earth", and is alongside another "type" of harvest, which is that of grapes in the winepress. Verses 17 to 20 speak of something violent coming against the faithful, for the grapes are being harvested (ie. the grapes represent the sons of the Kingdom), and they are "trampled" in the winepress, and "blood" flows out of the winepress as high as the horses' bridles (not grape juice, but blood). I don't think this one needs much more of an explanation; perhaps it brings more light to the words of Christ in Luke 18:8: "However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"
Pre-trib rapture theorists are often challenged by the assertion of the "other side" that there is an absense of logic in the fact that end-time Christians are spared persecution and martyrdom while Christians have been dying for their faith in Christ since he left earth. What many on both sides forget is that in this last century alone, more Christians were killed for their faith than in every other century prior COMBINED. Seems the harvest has begun!
My final point about a rapture of spirits out of martyred bodies at the end of days is the events following Revelation's Harvest - the Seven Bowls of God's Wrath (ch. 16). The third bowl is poured out on the water supplies of the earth so they become blood (familiar with the plague of blood by Moses). This angel proclaims the reason for doing so: "they have shed the blood of your saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink as they deserve" (16:6). This effects the drinking water for the whole earth, not just one country or city, which implicates a. the kingdom of the beast (the first whole-world kingdom), and b. that a proportional judgment has come upon the guilty generation (ie. a fair "repayment" for those who caused the martyrdom), and c. that all who drank from the water before it became blood are guilty of the genocide. A great delusion, indeed.
"God sends them a powerful delusion" (2 Thess 2:11)
I've often wondered about the number of people who would be included in a theoritical disappearing of Christians. I thought that many would be "left behind" who thought they shouldn't be, and this would be the source of great mourning, as I am a believer that the true church is much much smaller than the seen church. The only thing that could really test the faith of someone who fits into the "many are called, few are chosen" category would be a threat against their life. Perhaps a gun to their head. Perhaps a cattle car heading to an extermination camp. We saw how few Christians went to the Nazi camps for not participating in the genocide. A mass delusion then? Most certainly. A mass delusion at the end? More certainly.
"You will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other... he who stands firm to the end will be saved." Matthew 24 portions
First, let me say that I don't think the stories of Noah and Lot prove a pre-tribulation rapture, nor was I meaning to say that they do. Simply, there are some seeming prophetic types for a pre-tribulation rapture. Questions to take from that post are: is it a saving from all end-time tribulation, or just the final big bang? is it a complete evacuation of earth by all the faithful, or simply vacating the "area" of tribulation (if some see the final bang as happening in Jerusalem or Rome, or wherever)? Indeed, in both cases the faithful were taken away from the area of disaster; in Noah's case, the area of disaster was the entire planet, and in Lot's an area of cities. Further research into the area of end-time disaster is clearly required.
Anyway, many end-time theorists utilize the words of Jesus about the end being a harvest, particularly in the Parable of the Sower in Matthew 13 (v 39: "the harvest is the end of the age"). The premise is basically that there are weeds sown in among the wheat, and that the Master does not want to uproot the weeds presently for fear of losing some of the good wheat. Instead, he leaves it to the end, and begins then by pulling up the weeds and throwing them into the fire. Then, the remaining wheat is harvested.
This speaks to me about a great persecution more than an escape from persecution actually. The acts of pulling up weeds and using a sickle to remove the wheat from its roots are both violent and involve pain for the plants, if they could feel pain. Is this in reference to some sort of end time delusion or mass-test? Those who will not die for the truth are kept alive on earth to face the final apocalypse, while those who die for Christ (are cut down, as the wheat is) are "harvested" into the arms of their Savior in heaven, and return later with him?
The end time is also prophetically symbolized by the "threshing floor", which is mentioned frequently in conjunction with a winepress in the Old Testament. Literally, sheaves were laid on the circular threshing floor, and were trodden by oxen hitched to a central pivotal point. To me, this process of separating the wheat from the chaff (not speaking of separating weeds from grain) speaks of a negative or persecutory experience for the "grain" or the believer. But the process is not ended there.
The second part of the process of the threshing floor takes into account the wind. The farmer uses a winnowing fork and begins to throw up the trodden mess into the air to be caught by the wind. "The wind would blow the lighter chaff to one side, while the heavier grain would fall into a pile, which could then be gathered." (more info). Now, this seems to be an implication of another "going up", and is very symbolic of some sort of rapture. The question remains whether this is the rapture experienced by a Christian upon death (the normal going to heaven; just so happens to be that all of the Christians are put to death around the same time), or a mass evacuation preceded by a test of some sort to see who is faithful. I would lean towards a large-scale persecution, a mass abandonment of the faith (as predicted in Matthew 24:10-12), and a removal of the faithful by martyrdom - the gathering of the Lord.
"Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe." Revelation 14:15
The above verse from Revelation is from a section called "The Harvest of the Earth", and is alongside another "type" of harvest, which is that of grapes in the winepress. Verses 17 to 20 speak of something violent coming against the faithful, for the grapes are being harvested (ie. the grapes represent the sons of the Kingdom), and they are "trampled" in the winepress, and "blood" flows out of the winepress as high as the horses' bridles (not grape juice, but blood). I don't think this one needs much more of an explanation; perhaps it brings more light to the words of Christ in Luke 18:8: "However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"
Pre-trib rapture theorists are often challenged by the assertion of the "other side" that there is an absense of logic in the fact that end-time Christians are spared persecution and martyrdom while Christians have been dying for their faith in Christ since he left earth. What many on both sides forget is that in this last century alone, more Christians were killed for their faith than in every other century prior COMBINED. Seems the harvest has begun!
My final point about a rapture of spirits out of martyred bodies at the end of days is the events following Revelation's Harvest - the Seven Bowls of God's Wrath (ch. 16). The third bowl is poured out on the water supplies of the earth so they become blood (familiar with the plague of blood by Moses). This angel proclaims the reason for doing so: "they have shed the blood of your saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink as they deserve" (16:6). This effects the drinking water for the whole earth, not just one country or city, which implicates a. the kingdom of the beast (the first whole-world kingdom), and b. that a proportional judgment has come upon the guilty generation (ie. a fair "repayment" for those who caused the martyrdom), and c. that all who drank from the water before it became blood are guilty of the genocide. A great delusion, indeed.
"God sends them a powerful delusion" (2 Thess 2:11)
I've often wondered about the number of people who would be included in a theoritical disappearing of Christians. I thought that many would be "left behind" who thought they shouldn't be, and this would be the source of great mourning, as I am a believer that the true church is much much smaller than the seen church. The only thing that could really test the faith of someone who fits into the "many are called, few are chosen" category would be a threat against their life. Perhaps a gun to their head. Perhaps a cattle car heading to an extermination camp. We saw how few Christians went to the Nazi camps for not participating in the genocide. A mass delusion then? Most certainly. A mass delusion at the end? More certainly.
"You will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other... he who stands firm to the end will be saved." Matthew 24 portions
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
The Curious Case for a Pre-Trib Rapture
The first Christians had no Bible but the Old Testament, and perhaps the use of some of the non-canonical texts like the Book of Enoch. Mostly they relied on the wisdom and teaching of the church Fathers, who had the exact same Bible. It's more prudent of us to search for the truths and prophecies of end-times things in the Old Testament, because the New Testament was written with knowledge coming from the Old Testament (through revelation, I presume).
Having been a scoffer of pre-tribulation rapture ideas for quite some time, I've had to bite the bullet a bit and take a look at prophetic types in the ancient texts, because it seems there is some hint at a God-lover exit before the final ka-boom takes place. Jesus said the end will be like the days of Noah and like the days of sodom and Gomorrah (which can refer to more than one aspect), so let's take a look at what these might be "saying" to us in the here/now.
Noah
Lots of people think the genetic free-for-all leading up to the ark was the cause for the flood, and it makes a lot of sense when you consider the effect that angels producing offspring with human women could have - an almost irretrievably fallen "race" (literally, in this sense) if it was allowed to continue. It got so bad, and so widespread (the Book of Enoch says there were 180 some odd thousand of these hybrids wreaking havoc on the earth), that God found only Noah to be "perfect" in his generation.
There is much to be said here about genetic toggles in our day, and about the "beast" (which is flesh without spirit) being some sort of human clone who can be indwelled by Lucifer without any opposition by the flesh's owner (being absent). However, Noah prophesies a rapture for the beloved, and those who've chosen Him. Noah and his family were taken into the ark to "escape" (Gen 7:7) the wrath of the flood, were taken up by the waters and sat overtop the soak until it had accomplished all it was sent for. Then they came back down with the receding water, and exited the ark. Noah and his family would, of course, represent the chosen of God (I have to dread the day of "disappearing" if it comes and many who think they're in are in fact "left behind"; I've done a lot of writing in this blog about what it means to be saved, and perhaps what Jesus meant when he said "many are called, but few are chosen", or "narrow is the path... and only a few find it"; I suspect the "rapture" will be the most devastating day in history). It seems this is some sort of prophetic type, which can not be confirmed if it wasn't part of a couple (or some assortment of similar types).
Sodom & Gomorrah
Later in Genesis, we come to a 1-year span absolutely jam-packed with events, starting with a vist by God to Abraham. Here's a quick summary: God visits and tells Abraham, "I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son" (18:10). Sarah laughs (an unbelieving end-times Israel?). God tells Abraham what he's down for, which is to check out S&G, to see if it really deserves punishment, as He has heard. Abraham pleads for S&G. God's two companions arrive at Sodom (seems God went home), and meet Abraham's cousin Lot, who insists they stay with him (knowing the brutality of the town's inhabitants). The townsmen come for them and demand to have sex with the visitors (perhaps they knew angels were in town and wanted to become "men of renown" like the days of Noah when angels slept with humans?). The two angels (perhaps a prophecy of the Two Witnesses in Rev 11) then make their decision and tell Lot and all his family to immediately leave the city to escape the judgment, and they did. And with the rising of the sun (another prophetic type, in 19:23), the burning sulfur began to rain down on the cities and they were completely and utterly destroyed. Later, Lot's 2 daughters sleep with him while he is sleeping (not sure what this could typify), Abraham has another encounter with a King where he pretends his wife is his sister (which happened before), and finally Isaac is born (perhaps a prophecy of the coming of Christ).
There's so much in there, but my main point is on the prophetic parallel to an escape from judgment by the faithful - in the end, a rapture. There has been no contest, really, that there will be one, it's just a matter of when. And by reading Revelation, we can certainly see that the final judgment will only be the culmination of a series of horrible events. The question, then, is if the escape is from the final event or from the series of events?
Interesting to note also that the very bizarre occurences of Genesis in particular, and the bizarre moral choices of the "elect" and "righteous" begin to make some sense when we consider the stories a prophetic type (Example: Lot offered his 2 virgin daughters to the townsmen in place of the 2 strangers who had come to visit. What the...?).
When you take this approach to Genesis, and even the rest of the Pentateuch, you'll actually see the repition of it all, which could lead to further confirmation. An excellent example of this is found in Judges 19-20, which is a heart-breaking, stomach-churning account of a Levite and his concubine. They enter a town as visistor/travellers, and the townsmen surround the house like they did in Sodom, and said: "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him" (Jd 19:22). This leads to a civil war between Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, where they are almost completely wiped out. This is not a story told, but I'd strongly encourage you to read it. It comes shortly after the death of Samson, whose story can prophetically speak of the the time and ministry of the Two Witnesses again (IMO).
Very interesting, this Bible of ours.
Having been a scoffer of pre-tribulation rapture ideas for quite some time, I've had to bite the bullet a bit and take a look at prophetic types in the ancient texts, because it seems there is some hint at a God-lover exit before the final ka-boom takes place. Jesus said the end will be like the days of Noah and like the days of sodom and Gomorrah (which can refer to more than one aspect), so let's take a look at what these might be "saying" to us in the here/now.
Noah
Lots of people think the genetic free-for-all leading up to the ark was the cause for the flood, and it makes a lot of sense when you consider the effect that angels producing offspring with human women could have - an almost irretrievably fallen "race" (literally, in this sense) if it was allowed to continue. It got so bad, and so widespread (the Book of Enoch says there were 180 some odd thousand of these hybrids wreaking havoc on the earth), that God found only Noah to be "perfect" in his generation.
There is much to be said here about genetic toggles in our day, and about the "beast" (which is flesh without spirit) being some sort of human clone who can be indwelled by Lucifer without any opposition by the flesh's owner (being absent). However, Noah prophesies a rapture for the beloved, and those who've chosen Him. Noah and his family were taken into the ark to "escape" (Gen 7:7) the wrath of the flood, were taken up by the waters and sat overtop the soak until it had accomplished all it was sent for. Then they came back down with the receding water, and exited the ark. Noah and his family would, of course, represent the chosen of God (I have to dread the day of "disappearing" if it comes and many who think they're in are in fact "left behind"; I've done a lot of writing in this blog about what it means to be saved, and perhaps what Jesus meant when he said "many are called, but few are chosen", or "narrow is the path... and only a few find it"; I suspect the "rapture" will be the most devastating day in history). It seems this is some sort of prophetic type, which can not be confirmed if it wasn't part of a couple (or some assortment of similar types).
Sodom & Gomorrah
Later in Genesis, we come to a 1-year span absolutely jam-packed with events, starting with a vist by God to Abraham. Here's a quick summary: God visits and tells Abraham, "I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son" (18:10). Sarah laughs (an unbelieving end-times Israel?). God tells Abraham what he's down for, which is to check out S&G, to see if it really deserves punishment, as He has heard. Abraham pleads for S&G. God's two companions arrive at Sodom (seems God went home), and meet Abraham's cousin Lot, who insists they stay with him (knowing the brutality of the town's inhabitants). The townsmen come for them and demand to have sex with the visitors (perhaps they knew angels were in town and wanted to become "men of renown" like the days of Noah when angels slept with humans?). The two angels (perhaps a prophecy of the Two Witnesses in Rev 11) then make their decision and tell Lot and all his family to immediately leave the city to escape the judgment, and they did. And with the rising of the sun (another prophetic type, in 19:23), the burning sulfur began to rain down on the cities and they were completely and utterly destroyed. Later, Lot's 2 daughters sleep with him while he is sleeping (not sure what this could typify), Abraham has another encounter with a King where he pretends his wife is his sister (which happened before), and finally Isaac is born (perhaps a prophecy of the coming of Christ).
There's so much in there, but my main point is on the prophetic parallel to an escape from judgment by the faithful - in the end, a rapture. There has been no contest, really, that there will be one, it's just a matter of when. And by reading Revelation, we can certainly see that the final judgment will only be the culmination of a series of horrible events. The question, then, is if the escape is from the final event or from the series of events?
Interesting to note also that the very bizarre occurences of Genesis in particular, and the bizarre moral choices of the "elect" and "righteous" begin to make some sense when we consider the stories a prophetic type (Example: Lot offered his 2 virgin daughters to the townsmen in place of the 2 strangers who had come to visit. What the...?).
When you take this approach to Genesis, and even the rest of the Pentateuch, you'll actually see the repition of it all, which could lead to further confirmation. An excellent example of this is found in Judges 19-20, which is a heart-breaking, stomach-churning account of a Levite and his concubine. They enter a town as visistor/travellers, and the townsmen surround the house like they did in Sodom, and said: "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him" (Jd 19:22). This leads to a civil war between Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, where they are almost completely wiped out. This is not a story told, but I'd strongly encourage you to read it. It comes shortly after the death of Samson, whose story can prophetically speak of the the time and ministry of the Two Witnesses again (IMO).
Very interesting, this Bible of ours.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Odds & Ends
I have had a lot of time on my hands lately so I've been doing a lot of looking into things and, apart from becoming completely cynical and near-paranoid (in a good way!), I have come to understand some new, "alternative" perspectives on the world. Some not so alternative. I'm going to share with you some of the things I've seen:
Zeitgeist: the underground movie everyone is talking about, which questions our entire grid for understanding our reality, including religion, politics, wars, media, and everything in between. It's a film I don't agree fully with, but we can't ever agree fully on anything anyway. Prepare to have your faith tested, and your eyes opened. Highly recommended!
Freedom to Fascism: Aaron Russo's film which questions the legality of the income tax and attacked the growing authoritarianism in American life.
The Century of the Self: a 4-part documentary which aired on BBC in the UK. "This series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy." This documentary is VERY GOOD! It offers quite a different, less-sinister (or more sinister?) view on the "ruling elite", and is very well done.
Biblical Nutrition 101: this free e-book is quite cheesy, and if you don't mind the sales pitch, you'll be presented with a great case for a diet change. I found this after I had already made my diet changes and had begun working towards a mostly raw vegan diet. It'll make you think for sure!
Red Pill Reich: the blog of a nurse who, in her words, is "shattering the myth of modern medicine". The most recent post on the site is from mid-2008 and it says she's faced some unnamed pressures to cease posting, but she has left all the valuable information up. She discusses the pharmaceutical industry (origins and practices), the medical establishment, perscription drugs, the effort to "manage" disease rather than cure it, the toxicity of vaccines, the fluoridation of tap water (btw, check this video out) and so on. This site is a must for anyone living in North America.
Positivity Blog: I've noticed that the information I've been feeding on has been a little unbalanced and has become a little too weighty at times. There is a need for me to not think so much and to find some hope and encouragement. Enter the PositivityBlog.com; take a look, I think it explains itself.
TED: Wow, what a great site! A collection of talks by some of the greatest minds alive today. This is like doing sudoku; they really get you thinking!
I may have put my blog on some watchlist by mentioning some of these things, but oh well. Enjoy!!
Zeitgeist: the underground movie everyone is talking about, which questions our entire grid for understanding our reality, including religion, politics, wars, media, and everything in between. It's a film I don't agree fully with, but we can't ever agree fully on anything anyway. Prepare to have your faith tested, and your eyes opened. Highly recommended!
Freedom to Fascism: Aaron Russo's film which questions the legality of the income tax and attacked the growing authoritarianism in American life.
The Century of the Self: a 4-part documentary which aired on BBC in the UK. "This series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy." This documentary is VERY GOOD! It offers quite a different, less-sinister (or more sinister?) view on the "ruling elite", and is very well done.
Biblical Nutrition 101: this free e-book is quite cheesy, and if you don't mind the sales pitch, you'll be presented with a great case for a diet change. I found this after I had already made my diet changes and had begun working towards a mostly raw vegan diet. It'll make you think for sure!
Red Pill Reich: the blog of a nurse who, in her words, is "shattering the myth of modern medicine". The most recent post on the site is from mid-2008 and it says she's faced some unnamed pressures to cease posting, but she has left all the valuable information up. She discusses the pharmaceutical industry (origins and practices), the medical establishment, perscription drugs, the effort to "manage" disease rather than cure it, the toxicity of vaccines, the fluoridation of tap water (btw, check this video out) and so on. This site is a must for anyone living in North America.
Positivity Blog: I've noticed that the information I've been feeding on has been a little unbalanced and has become a little too weighty at times. There is a need for me to not think so much and to find some hope and encouragement. Enter the PositivityBlog.com; take a look, I think it explains itself.
TED: Wow, what a great site! A collection of talks by some of the greatest minds alive today. This is like doing sudoku; they really get you thinking!
I may have put my blog on some watchlist by mentioning some of these things, but oh well. Enjoy!!
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Subject of Psychology
As Christians, it is the journey we are on to become whole and perfect beings. It is to correct our engrained nature to reflect the divine "nature" if you can call it that. Let's call the divine "nature" good. Our mission is to become this 'good' that God is, because we are children of 'good' and are alive in the body of the 'good' Christ.
Often this begins with guilt as we learn about the divine "nature" and a feeling of condemnation as our own nature dictates an image of an angry God. As we mature (and if we mature), we come to see that God is not angry with us at all, and this unconditional love that we suddenly realize then begins to set our minds free.
Our behavior changes as well, as we grow. We become conscious of our actions because we see an alternate way of being in Christ, who we are learning more and more about. The frustration for someone making their own attempts to change their behavior is that they find it extremely difficult, and may even be aware enough to realize that whatever progress they've made easily takes on another manifestation (eg. overcoming a habit of lying becomes pride about overcoming it). We discover that it is not the surface manifestations that need to change, but the actual heart of these actions, the cell from which they come. Doing anything else is trying to cure the disease by stopping its symptoms. Futile.
So it then becomes a matter of our psychology, as this is all a trip of "renewing the mind"; the mind is the epicentre of our actions, the container of the information through which we make decisions, and the dictator of our every reaction. And it is these actions and deeds of our bodies that set us apart from God, that make us ungodly. I've never heard of a "sin" of the spirit.
It becomes a question of whether we are a subject of our psychology, or a subject of Christ, a subject of the beast or of the spirit. It is about changing the information that is in the mind so that we automatically make different decisions and have different reactions. This information is understanding the love of God, and seeing futility in the things we currently do (ie. gaining wisdom). This information is regarding our own endlessness and magnitude as children of God, which can change our perspective dramatically. It is a new truth, a higher truth, and it changes everything about our actions the more we know of it.
Often this begins with guilt as we learn about the divine "nature" and a feeling of condemnation as our own nature dictates an image of an angry God. As we mature (and if we mature), we come to see that God is not angry with us at all, and this unconditional love that we suddenly realize then begins to set our minds free.
Our behavior changes as well, as we grow. We become conscious of our actions because we see an alternate way of being in Christ, who we are learning more and more about. The frustration for someone making their own attempts to change their behavior is that they find it extremely difficult, and may even be aware enough to realize that whatever progress they've made easily takes on another manifestation (eg. overcoming a habit of lying becomes pride about overcoming it). We discover that it is not the surface manifestations that need to change, but the actual heart of these actions, the cell from which they come. Doing anything else is trying to cure the disease by stopping its symptoms. Futile.
So it then becomes a matter of our psychology, as this is all a trip of "renewing the mind"; the mind is the epicentre of our actions, the container of the information through which we make decisions, and the dictator of our every reaction. And it is these actions and deeds of our bodies that set us apart from God, that make us ungodly. I've never heard of a "sin" of the spirit.
It becomes a question of whether we are a subject of our psychology, or a subject of Christ, a subject of the beast or of the spirit. It is about changing the information that is in the mind so that we automatically make different decisions and have different reactions. This information is understanding the love of God, and seeing futility in the things we currently do (ie. gaining wisdom). This information is regarding our own endlessness and magnitude as children of God, which can change our perspective dramatically. It is a new truth, a higher truth, and it changes everything about our actions the more we know of it.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Bless This Food to My Body's Use
A common phrase amongst prayers at the dinner table, I suddenly found it funny the other day, with all my recent study of food, that we would say this prior to consuming some of the garbage we consume. Granted, a lot of our consumption is mindless and based on ignorance, but the habit of asking for a blessing on toxic intake begins to sound ludacris to the one who suddenly discovers what is actually being consumed.
I've gone "extreme" and have begun to eat only organic food, recording all instances of inorganic feedings so that I can limit them and find replacements for them. I decreased dairy intake to nearly nil, stopped consuming refined sugar, I rarely eat red meat, and am trying to replace all meat consumption altogether. Though organic is not fail-safe, it is far safer to ingest than any mainstream equivalent. Significantly reduced are pesticide residues, food formed out of chemically-infused soil, hormones, steroids, and on and on.
We are fools to ask for the miracles we ask for when we want nutrients and energy from a cheeseburger, or any of the other nutrient-starved items we take in. The verse about Jerusalem being charged to pray for protection and "strengthen your gate" comes to mind. Pray for health and the good work of your food, but also EAT GOOD FOOD!
Humans are the only creature to consume the baby's milk of - I hate to say it - "other animals". We keep these hiefers producing by impregnating them like clockwork, and toggle their hormonal nature to keep it coming. Strange we do this. Humans are the only creature to change the chemical balance and nutrition structure of their food before eating it, and by that I am referring to cooking/heating. I heard that an old technique for pig farmers to fatten up their animals was to cook the potatoes before feeding them; feed them raw potatoes, and they stay lean.
Humans choose all kinds of things, in all their infinite wisdom, that do nothing but satisfy the senses, and I hate to keep drumming this beat, but that line the coffers of some corporation. Consumption is based on making money, and as usual, the money motivator has destroyed it.
With so much disease, discomfort, and all the rest, it would seem logical that the first change recommended to us would be the riddance of all nutrient-starved food, and the replacement with a more "organic" diet (ie. organically grown fruit and veg consumed raw where possible, limited animal product intake). But since the healthcare profession is largely dollar-based as well, we hear the recommendation for pharmaceuticals, because these line someone's coffer... a proper diet does not pay commission.
I think that with the science behind the consumption of foods, and how these particles we put into our bodies actually become part of our material makeup, we would do ourselves a much better service by saying something like "this becomes me" just prior to eating. This could develop in us a distaste for anything void of health, and would be us "strengthening our gate". Then the natural "miracle" of digestion and utilization can take place, and we can pray correctly: bless this food to my body's use.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Disaster Capitalism
I read an excerpt from a book called The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein here. In it, she describes the actions of people like Milton Friedman in the days, weeks, and months after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Essentially, "within 19 months, with most of the city's poor residents still in exile, New Orleans' public school system had been almost completely replaced by privately run charter schools."
Another excerpt reads:
"For more than three decades, Friedman and his powerful followers had been perfecting this very strategy: waiting for a major crisis, then selling off pieces of the state to private players while citizens were still reeling from the shock."
With this as an example, it seems there's been an evolution within capitalism so that absoultely everything is submitted to a corporation by any means necessary. With this mindset, a natural evolution takes place, and seems to be completely realistic. Here is what I mean:
Waiting for disasters to happen and planning to swoop in with corporate takeovers > Preventing measures to make these disasters impact less (like strengthening the dykes around New Orleans, etc.) > Actually weakening the dykes so that when disaster hits the effect is multiplied > Timing wreckage with disaster to avoid any "miracles" > The creation of "disasters" (terrorist events, wars, the boogie man in Afghanistan, the threat of disaster in the form of a pending epidemic, shootings, and so on... the media loves to help this cause).
My thought is that if there are large groups of people whose "optimism" in the face of "disaster" is actually veiled opportunism, then there are factions within those groups whose greed has been accelerated to the point where the truest form of "survival of the fittest" is evident. This leaves little to no regard for the well-being of the "lower class", or those who haven't been "fit" enough to amass large amounts of wealth. The mindset evolves to "it's their own fault", and they prey on the belief of many in the goodness of people.
This was also seen shortly after the United states "won" the war in Iraq, which was not a declaration of victory, but the sound of a starting gun for the bidding war on contracts in this newly acquired, oil-drenched land. This idea is quite familiar. In fact, it seems to be a trait of some prophetic character, given in Daniel 11:39...
He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price.
This is disgusting, but sadly relevant to anyone who lives anywhere.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Prophetic Joseph
I have had the actions of Joseph as Governor of Egypt as described in Genesis on my mind as I've watched the unfolding of this whole-world financial crisis. If you're not familiar with the story, here's a quick recap:
Joseph was in prison, accused of attempted rape on the Captain of the Guard's wife, when he was brought before Pharaoh as a last resort to interpret dreams that had been plaguing him for several nights; Joseph deciphers with precision that seven years of abundance would come, followed by seven years of drought, and recommended he appoint someone to oversee the stockpiling of food resources over the years of abundance to avoid the ruin that would face Egypt if they didn't; Pharoah appoints Joseph, who taxes the farming nation a fifth of their production and oversees its safekeeping; when the seven years of drought hit, he sells the food (yes, sells) to the people whom he taxed as well as people from other nations who didn't have the foresight to prepare, and keeps selling until they are deprived of all their money (47:14), all their working animals, their privately-owned land, and then to top it all off, if they wanted food they had to give themselves as slaves to the service of the throne.
So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh's, and Joseph reduced the people to servitude, from one end of Egypt to the other. Gen 47:20-21
Up until the last few months, I had glossed over this, presuming that because the implication was that Joseph did a good thing, that he did a good thing. But it seems to me now that this was actually quite a violation of the values that we hold these days as far as politics and laws go. Essentially, the natural occurrence of a famine was used to bring an entire nation of free, land-owning people into ownership by their unelected king. The text is clear that he "reduced the people", and it is suddenly shocking!
Now, I understand certain things about Genesis, whereby there are very many prophetic stories that may cause us to raise an eyebrow at their happening as historical events, but may do more to tell us about what's going to happen in the future. The sacrifice of Isaac is another such story, which is graphic and unthinkable, but which also prophesies the actions of the Son (so that we can recognize him and understand the redemption plan), and tells the story of the Father's love. This story of Joseph prophesies the work of Christ at the end, possibly enabling the servitude of all mankind to one head so that he could most easily swoop in and assume the throne created.
It seems the whole mortgage and banking collapse is much the same as this story of Joseph. It makes me uneasy that governments are providing bailout packages to the big banks and are actually purchasing billions of dollars worth of shares in them. They are purchasing large sections of the banks, which have put the vast majority of people into meaningless jobs, doing nothing more than a servant's tasks in order to keep living. To make it make even less sense, the government is using the money they've collected from the indebted people as a percentage of the wage they earn at their job - jobs these people keep in order to pay their debt - to give to and invest in the companies that have indebted them. And to take it one more step, these bailed-out banks have created the money they lent to "debt consumers" virtually out of thin air (ie. there is not enough currency printed to even come close to the amount of debt is payable out there), by legislation that allows them to use and lend out 90% of bank deposits. They charge usury on absolutely nothing, no paper linked to a piece of gold. The government is bailing them out?
The harsh reality is that the vast majority of Westerners have been sold the idea of slavery to debt as, very probably, the only way to survive. So we buy homes, and it is just so convenient that they are only affordable for the average worker if the amortization period is round about the length of time it takes us to reach retirement age. I saw somebody's Facebook status today, which read: "I owe, I owe, it's off to work I go", and it saddened me to think that this is reality for a great majority of people who work not because they enjoy it, but because they either owe enormous sums of money to the banks, or because they've bought into the "dream" that success is owing that much, or even less forunately, they work because they just can't keep up or get ahead.
Why this obsession with productivity? Why must life be centered around work? For the life of me, I've never been able to understand this. If we are the animals they say we are, why aren't we playing as much as animals are, socializing as much, getting as much rest as we need, and for heaven's sake, working just enough to meet our needs? Unfortunately, as "animals", the survival instinct kicks in and dictates the gathering of wealth to weather nature's storms and provide longevity for ourselves and our offspring.
Not much makes sense in this godless system of servitude when you really think about it.
Joseph was in prison, accused of attempted rape on the Captain of the Guard's wife, when he was brought before Pharaoh as a last resort to interpret dreams that had been plaguing him for several nights; Joseph deciphers with precision that seven years of abundance would come, followed by seven years of drought, and recommended he appoint someone to oversee the stockpiling of food resources over the years of abundance to avoid the ruin that would face Egypt if they didn't; Pharoah appoints Joseph, who taxes the farming nation a fifth of their production and oversees its safekeeping; when the seven years of drought hit, he sells the food (yes, sells) to the people whom he taxed as well as people from other nations who didn't have the foresight to prepare, and keeps selling until they are deprived of all their money (47:14), all their working animals, their privately-owned land, and then to top it all off, if they wanted food they had to give themselves as slaves to the service of the throne.
So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh's, and Joseph reduced the people to servitude, from one end of Egypt to the other. Gen 47:20-21
Up until the last few months, I had glossed over this, presuming that because the implication was that Joseph did a good thing, that he did a good thing. But it seems to me now that this was actually quite a violation of the values that we hold these days as far as politics and laws go. Essentially, the natural occurrence of a famine was used to bring an entire nation of free, land-owning people into ownership by their unelected king. The text is clear that he "reduced the people", and it is suddenly shocking!
Now, I understand certain things about Genesis, whereby there are very many prophetic stories that may cause us to raise an eyebrow at their happening as historical events, but may do more to tell us about what's going to happen in the future. The sacrifice of Isaac is another such story, which is graphic and unthinkable, but which also prophesies the actions of the Son (so that we can recognize him and understand the redemption plan), and tells the story of the Father's love. This story of Joseph prophesies the work of Christ at the end, possibly enabling the servitude of all mankind to one head so that he could most easily swoop in and assume the throne created.
It seems the whole mortgage and banking collapse is much the same as this story of Joseph. It makes me uneasy that governments are providing bailout packages to the big banks and are actually purchasing billions of dollars worth of shares in them. They are purchasing large sections of the banks, which have put the vast majority of people into meaningless jobs, doing nothing more than a servant's tasks in order to keep living. To make it make even less sense, the government is using the money they've collected from the indebted people as a percentage of the wage they earn at their job - jobs these people keep in order to pay their debt - to give to and invest in the companies that have indebted them. And to take it one more step, these bailed-out banks have created the money they lent to "debt consumers" virtually out of thin air (ie. there is not enough currency printed to even come close to the amount of debt is payable out there), by legislation that allows them to use and lend out 90% of bank deposits. They charge usury on absolutely nothing, no paper linked to a piece of gold. The government is bailing them out?
The harsh reality is that the vast majority of Westerners have been sold the idea of slavery to debt as, very probably, the only way to survive. So we buy homes, and it is just so convenient that they are only affordable for the average worker if the amortization period is round about the length of time it takes us to reach retirement age. I saw somebody's Facebook status today, which read: "I owe, I owe, it's off to work I go", and it saddened me to think that this is reality for a great majority of people who work not because they enjoy it, but because they either owe enormous sums of money to the banks, or because they've bought into the "dream" that success is owing that much, or even less forunately, they work because they just can't keep up or get ahead.
Why this obsession with productivity? Why must life be centered around work? For the life of me, I've never been able to understand this. If we are the animals they say we are, why aren't we playing as much as animals are, socializing as much, getting as much rest as we need, and for heaven's sake, working just enough to meet our needs? Unfortunately, as "animals", the survival instinct kicks in and dictates the gathering of wealth to weather nature's storms and provide longevity for ourselves and our offspring.
Not much makes sense in this godless system of servitude when you really think about it.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Ears to Hear
“How much?” I asked her with my window rolled down.
“What would you like?” She replied, sauntering over to my car – a subtle imitation of playing hard-to-get, which I guess is a turn-on for men who like the thrill of the chase.
“I’d like for you to spend the evening at home, out of the cold. How much will it take?” I replied.
“What?” came back with a gasp. She was a fish out of water.
“How much would you make working tonight?”
“About forty bucks I guess,” her expression asking a million more questions than her lips. She zipped her coat up to her chin and huddled inwardly because of the cold. I got out of the car.
“Here’s eighty,” I said, holding out the cash. “This’ll buy your time for two nights. Promise me you’ll stay home?”
“Thank you so much! Yes!” She looked at the money in disbelief. Speechless moments passed as she let her eyes pop back and forth between the cash in her hand and my eyes, which told her I really wanted nothing from her. “Why are you doing this?”
“I don’t want to see you out in the cold like this,” was all I could think of to say. I didn’t plan so far ahead that I had a good answer to any question she might possibly ask. I hoped that was all she would wonder.
“Thank you so much!” she wrapped her arms around me in a hug. Now I was the fish out of water – embarrassed, out of my realm of comfort, shaking. I had never spoken to a prostitute before, let alone hugged one! Unsure of what I should do next, I wrapped up the exchange with some typical courtesy and we were both on our way – she continued to thank me as she staggered off in a state of shock.
“God bless you!” she remembered to say, turning back to face me, and I replied with the same.
I hopped into my car, shaking, and not because of the bite of the January wind. I was exhilarated and afraid, but so happy I had finally built up the courage to do this.
I don’t have any knowledge of this being some life-changing event for her – that wasn’t what I was after. I wanted to listen to the Voice within, and if that was all I was after, I had succeeded. Success is simple when it is simple obedience.
The next week, I returned to that area of town – the area where people lock their car doors as they drive through and try to make it without stopping – looking for someone else to send home. I wasn’t looking for her. But there she was.
She spotted me from the sidewalk and flagged me down; I parked at the curb. She scurried over from across the street without the saunter I had seen before. I rolled down my window. She was leaning over while I sat inside; I realized what this looked like, and I politely got out of the car to speak to her face to face. I was after obedience, not a night in jail.
With a gigantic grin she gushed, “You’ll be happy to know I went home that day,” she explained. I returned a big smile. “I spent the evening with my kids, and the next day I went shopping and I was able to buy tons of groceries and even a few toys and things for the kids.”
“Oh I’m so happy,” I said in my returned flush of awkwardness. I reached in my pocket and produced a few more nights off the streets. “Here,” I said. And that beloved prostitute, no further from God than I was, hugged me again. This time, I tried to return a more passionate tap on her back as she embraced me.
***
It must have been quite an offense to the ancient religious chiefs of Jesus’ day for him to be spending time with people like this – prostitutes. These were breakers of the law with the worst of offenses, the scourge of the people, the lowest of the low. Yet with prostitutes, and with the rest of the riff raff, he spent most of his time. I imagine he laughed with them, played whatever pebble games they played, had dinner, danced. When the time was right, he may have become serious and reached inside with those eternal eyes to bring their hearts to light, but I also imagine he didn’t do that a lot of the time. They were his home – family, whom he loved.
There’s something about the people who know that they’ve got it all wrong, but can’t help it. Compassion wells up in the depths of him; the exuding humility given by their identity in that culture drew him in. The way they lived, the way they earned their money, the activities that filled their days didn’t mean anything to him when it came to that affinity he felt with them, that heart-state born of an embattled life. He didn’t always have to teach them and try to heal them; he just wanted to be with them. Humility – it draws the humble. And the others – those who knew they had it right – were most often left out, and would stand scratching their heads when he spoke to them. In fact, the only hellfire and brimstone Jesus ever spoke of while he was here was theirs – the chief priests and teachers of the law.
At one point during his time with us, he condemned those who were right and knew it: "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you (Matthew 21:31-32).
I wonder what is more offensive to a Holy God: one who turns tricks all night and has no admission of innocence by their very identity, or one who insists on their innocence by their very identity but is fully aware of their guilt in the minutest of offenses? At face value, which would we consider to be ‘holier’? Something tells me God doesn’t see people the same way we do. In fact, the danger is to create an expectation of God to have the same perspective we do, to create God in our own image, as Rosseau said, making a different point.
Expectation produces the worst danger when we speak of God. Even if Christianity isn’t your persuasion, we have built in to us by experience and context a vision of what or who God is. We read, we hear stories, we philosophize our days away and we expect the arrival of a dove. Instead, a pigeon lands on our shoulder and we tell it to flap away so the dove will have a spot to perch. So the pigeon flies away, and we spend the rest of the day watching the sky for a little white bird.
The imagination is wild and we sometimes ascribe it the ability to give us insight into the future. These images of coming events are at best a guess, and are never perfectly correct. Never. And through this ‘foresight’ we build up a matrix of things that God is and isn’t, and how he would respond to this situation, and who he would associate with, what he loves, what he hates, where he lives, why he made us, why we suffer, why we wander around in endless circles. We create a grid for understanding him, and we miss him. It’s the saddest reality – that he is so close, yet so far away; that he comes to us and we, with all our ideas, miss him by their blinders; that the pigeon sits on our shoulder, and we tell it to fly away.
The chief priests and teachers of the law did this – told him to fly away. He sat on their shoulder: the one they pray to; the one they make sacrifices to; their creator. But they had all these ideas about who he was and certainly who he wasn’t, about where he would go and who he would talk to, about what he loved and hated, and on and on their list went. And when he attended dinner parties with prostitutes, they missed him. It couldn’t be him; he is supposed to hate prostitutes.
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. John 1:10
Jesus? It can’t be him. He’s not supposed to come and then leave again, he’s not supposed to die, he’s not supposed to be Jewish, he’s not supposed to become a human, he’s not supposed to be anything more than the collective consciousness. He’s supposed to bring world peace, not war. He’s supposed to be love, not hatred and judgment. He’s supposed to have good people following him, not hypocrites. He’s supposed to be dead, he’s supposed to be science, he’s supposed to be me.
Jesus?
It takes a clean slate to begin the search for God, and with him truth and a purposeful life. It takes a blank canvas, which you are. Where I call ‘expectation’ the most dangerous thing, many religious leaders have called an open mind the most dangerous thing. Expectation shuts our eyes and closes our ears to any potential for finding what we are looking for. And an open mind is the first step of the journey home. It gives us eyes to see and ears to hear – the ability to accept the pigeon.
***
A few weeks had gone by, and I was driving through that area of town again with my doors locked and a prayer for a string of green lights, and I saw her, the prostitute. She looked the same – long, stringy hair bleached blonde months ago, bumpy skin, tight pants – and she was still giving herself away. In fact, she was giving herself away right then, hopping into a big white van with a shaggy looking man. The prostitute – a mother, a friend, a future, a spirit – someone loved.
He who has ears, let him ear.
“What would you like?” She replied, sauntering over to my car – a subtle imitation of playing hard-to-get, which I guess is a turn-on for men who like the thrill of the chase.
“I’d like for you to spend the evening at home, out of the cold. How much will it take?” I replied.
“What?” came back with a gasp. She was a fish out of water.
“How much would you make working tonight?”
“About forty bucks I guess,” her expression asking a million more questions than her lips. She zipped her coat up to her chin and huddled inwardly because of the cold. I got out of the car.
“Here’s eighty,” I said, holding out the cash. “This’ll buy your time for two nights. Promise me you’ll stay home?”
“Thank you so much! Yes!” She looked at the money in disbelief. Speechless moments passed as she let her eyes pop back and forth between the cash in her hand and my eyes, which told her I really wanted nothing from her. “Why are you doing this?”
“I don’t want to see you out in the cold like this,” was all I could think of to say. I didn’t plan so far ahead that I had a good answer to any question she might possibly ask. I hoped that was all she would wonder.
“Thank you so much!” she wrapped her arms around me in a hug. Now I was the fish out of water – embarrassed, out of my realm of comfort, shaking. I had never spoken to a prostitute before, let alone hugged one! Unsure of what I should do next, I wrapped up the exchange with some typical courtesy and we were both on our way – she continued to thank me as she staggered off in a state of shock.
“God bless you!” she remembered to say, turning back to face me, and I replied with the same.
I hopped into my car, shaking, and not because of the bite of the January wind. I was exhilarated and afraid, but so happy I had finally built up the courage to do this.
I don’t have any knowledge of this being some life-changing event for her – that wasn’t what I was after. I wanted to listen to the Voice within, and if that was all I was after, I had succeeded. Success is simple when it is simple obedience.
The next week, I returned to that area of town – the area where people lock their car doors as they drive through and try to make it without stopping – looking for someone else to send home. I wasn’t looking for her. But there she was.
She spotted me from the sidewalk and flagged me down; I parked at the curb. She scurried over from across the street without the saunter I had seen before. I rolled down my window. She was leaning over while I sat inside; I realized what this looked like, and I politely got out of the car to speak to her face to face. I was after obedience, not a night in jail.
With a gigantic grin she gushed, “You’ll be happy to know I went home that day,” she explained. I returned a big smile. “I spent the evening with my kids, and the next day I went shopping and I was able to buy tons of groceries and even a few toys and things for the kids.”
“Oh I’m so happy,” I said in my returned flush of awkwardness. I reached in my pocket and produced a few more nights off the streets. “Here,” I said. And that beloved prostitute, no further from God than I was, hugged me again. This time, I tried to return a more passionate tap on her back as she embraced me.
***
It must have been quite an offense to the ancient religious chiefs of Jesus’ day for him to be spending time with people like this – prostitutes. These were breakers of the law with the worst of offenses, the scourge of the people, the lowest of the low. Yet with prostitutes, and with the rest of the riff raff, he spent most of his time. I imagine he laughed with them, played whatever pebble games they played, had dinner, danced. When the time was right, he may have become serious and reached inside with those eternal eyes to bring their hearts to light, but I also imagine he didn’t do that a lot of the time. They were his home – family, whom he loved.
There’s something about the people who know that they’ve got it all wrong, but can’t help it. Compassion wells up in the depths of him; the exuding humility given by their identity in that culture drew him in. The way they lived, the way they earned their money, the activities that filled their days didn’t mean anything to him when it came to that affinity he felt with them, that heart-state born of an embattled life. He didn’t always have to teach them and try to heal them; he just wanted to be with them. Humility – it draws the humble. And the others – those who knew they had it right – were most often left out, and would stand scratching their heads when he spoke to them. In fact, the only hellfire and brimstone Jesus ever spoke of while he was here was theirs – the chief priests and teachers of the law.
At one point during his time with us, he condemned those who were right and knew it: "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you (Matthew 21:31-32).
I wonder what is more offensive to a Holy God: one who turns tricks all night and has no admission of innocence by their very identity, or one who insists on their innocence by their very identity but is fully aware of their guilt in the minutest of offenses? At face value, which would we consider to be ‘holier’? Something tells me God doesn’t see people the same way we do. In fact, the danger is to create an expectation of God to have the same perspective we do, to create God in our own image, as Rosseau said, making a different point.
Expectation produces the worst danger when we speak of God. Even if Christianity isn’t your persuasion, we have built in to us by experience and context a vision of what or who God is. We read, we hear stories, we philosophize our days away and we expect the arrival of a dove. Instead, a pigeon lands on our shoulder and we tell it to flap away so the dove will have a spot to perch. So the pigeon flies away, and we spend the rest of the day watching the sky for a little white bird.
The imagination is wild and we sometimes ascribe it the ability to give us insight into the future. These images of coming events are at best a guess, and are never perfectly correct. Never. And through this ‘foresight’ we build up a matrix of things that God is and isn’t, and how he would respond to this situation, and who he would associate with, what he loves, what he hates, where he lives, why he made us, why we suffer, why we wander around in endless circles. We create a grid for understanding him, and we miss him. It’s the saddest reality – that he is so close, yet so far away; that he comes to us and we, with all our ideas, miss him by their blinders; that the pigeon sits on our shoulder, and we tell it to fly away.
The chief priests and teachers of the law did this – told him to fly away. He sat on their shoulder: the one they pray to; the one they make sacrifices to; their creator. But they had all these ideas about who he was and certainly who he wasn’t, about where he would go and who he would talk to, about what he loved and hated, and on and on their list went. And when he attended dinner parties with prostitutes, they missed him. It couldn’t be him; he is supposed to hate prostitutes.
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. John 1:10
Jesus? It can’t be him. He’s not supposed to come and then leave again, he’s not supposed to die, he’s not supposed to be Jewish, he’s not supposed to become a human, he’s not supposed to be anything more than the collective consciousness. He’s supposed to bring world peace, not war. He’s supposed to be love, not hatred and judgment. He’s supposed to have good people following him, not hypocrites. He’s supposed to be dead, he’s supposed to be science, he’s supposed to be me.
Jesus?
It takes a clean slate to begin the search for God, and with him truth and a purposeful life. It takes a blank canvas, which you are. Where I call ‘expectation’ the most dangerous thing, many religious leaders have called an open mind the most dangerous thing. Expectation shuts our eyes and closes our ears to any potential for finding what we are looking for. And an open mind is the first step of the journey home. It gives us eyes to see and ears to hear – the ability to accept the pigeon.
***
A few weeks had gone by, and I was driving through that area of town again with my doors locked and a prayer for a string of green lights, and I saw her, the prostitute. She looked the same – long, stringy hair bleached blonde months ago, bumpy skin, tight pants – and she was still giving herself away. In fact, she was giving herself away right then, hopping into a big white van with a shaggy looking man. The prostitute – a mother, a friend, a future, a spirit – someone loved.
He who has ears, let him ear.
Friday, June 13, 2008
The Train
Funny what taking the train does to me. For 140 minutes a day, I sit there, mostly reading and listening to my ipod. When I'm not reading, I'm staring out the window at the morning sun illuminating the high Fraser, or the vibration rings coming to the shore of the Burrard Inlet - it's a beautiful start to any day.
I'm always drawn to the people as well - my fellow commuters. And without fail, I always get to thinking about the 'system' in all its futility. Where are we going? Why are we going there? The mass sea exits the train at the station and scurries off to their cubicle to do something that merely fills their time and pays their bills. Something only few will admit means absolutely nothing.
I spend a lot of time trying not to be noticed staring at my fellow travellers, so the stares are quick and pointed. I see tired faces, rough faces, sad faces, happy faces. I love the line in As Good As It Gets, when the artist says to his model: "If you stare at someone long enough, you begin to see their humanity". I love doing this every day. They are so precious these people, yet their minds are far from knowing it, grasping it, and enjoying it. They are also so very deep and infinite in fact, but who knows it?
There is so much sub-par living, it is sad. It is precious to see them doing what they think is best to do and what they need to do, but overall they labor in vain, and it is sad. I understand why God came to us then: we're wasting our times in vanity. Everything is vanity.
I'm always drawn to the people as well - my fellow commuters. And without fail, I always get to thinking about the 'system' in all its futility. Where are we going? Why are we going there? The mass sea exits the train at the station and scurries off to their cubicle to do something that merely fills their time and pays their bills. Something only few will admit means absolutely nothing.
I spend a lot of time trying not to be noticed staring at my fellow travellers, so the stares are quick and pointed. I see tired faces, rough faces, sad faces, happy faces. I love the line in As Good As It Gets, when the artist says to his model: "If you stare at someone long enough, you begin to see their humanity". I love doing this every day. They are so precious these people, yet their minds are far from knowing it, grasping it, and enjoying it. They are also so very deep and infinite in fact, but who knows it?
There is so much sub-par living, it is sad. It is precious to see them doing what they think is best to do and what they need to do, but overall they labor in vain, and it is sad. I understand why God came to us then: we're wasting our times in vanity. Everything is vanity.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Death
Once in a while I scare the hell out of myself and think about death. And not just glazing over it, but actually facing it, thinking about what it is to die. I simply cannot fathom the understanding of death by an atheist. How do you consider yourself nothing more than matter and come to accept that death is completely and utterly ceasing to exist? How does one imagine that some day there will be nothing, absolutely no remnant, of themselves anywhere. I tend to think they are taking a scientific stance for the sake of it, and aren't really facing the horrific reality of their religion. To their credit, they also aren't creating a fantasy to help them sleep at night.
For me, with all I know and understand about the universe and God and what he's done to keep me from dying the horrific death of most - even with all I know and the lengths I have travelled to know it - I am still afraid of death. I cannot get it into my head that I will die. It seems, with all I know, though, that I cannot grasp it because I know my own eternity, and the thought of death is just so contrary to what I have become.
I explained to a friend today that yes, I have an unshakable and firm belief, but yet, I have fear, if that makes any sense to you.
I recently finished writing a book (part of why this is the first blog entry since the end of March), in which I tell my own story and all I've learned on it. I tell of Adam and the falls, about Jesus and the recovery, and I talk about acceptance and peace. I sum everything up in the last chapter, saying that the purpose of a Christian in taking their journey to God is to discover themselves by discovering Him. It is to understand our own eternity now that death is a thing removed. In finding this and understanding this (because of the freedom from death), we are free to begin living by our eternal nature, the spirit, and lay aside all the futility of 'the flesh'. The 'flesh' loses its power over us as we embrace the spirit.
The chapter is called 'Remember Who You Are' and uses the analogy of the ancient story of the Lion King, when Mufasa tells his runaway son to do this and insodoing return to what he was.
(In the book I also question the spirit's ability to die, surmising that it cannot for it has no body to be diseased or to falter or anything of the sort. I guess that a spirit created is a spirit forever and hypothesize that this is why places like the 'Lake of Fire' exist for these spirits rather than zapping them into nonexistence.)
So, while the knowledge of our own eternity is beneficial and enormously freeing, does it completely remove fear of death? I can't believe that we are to live life and go all the way through it having beliefs about death and only beliefs. I don't trust belief. I don't trust my mind, for it is futile and only cares about appeasing itself. How, then, to prove eternity?
Perhaps this is why Peter and Paul went around in the power of the spirit preaching and trying to prove the resurrection of Jesus, for by this we have the hope of resurrection... of eternity.
I plan on searching the Spirit (the good one) for eternity, for some promise of it, some greater hope. Some proof. And then it is my goal in life to prove eternity to everyone else.
For me, with all I know and understand about the universe and God and what he's done to keep me from dying the horrific death of most - even with all I know and the lengths I have travelled to know it - I am still afraid of death. I cannot get it into my head that I will die. It seems, with all I know, though, that I cannot grasp it because I know my own eternity, and the thought of death is just so contrary to what I have become.
I explained to a friend today that yes, I have an unshakable and firm belief, but yet, I have fear, if that makes any sense to you.
I recently finished writing a book (part of why this is the first blog entry since the end of March), in which I tell my own story and all I've learned on it. I tell of Adam and the falls, about Jesus and the recovery, and I talk about acceptance and peace. I sum everything up in the last chapter, saying that the purpose of a Christian in taking their journey to God is to discover themselves by discovering Him. It is to understand our own eternity now that death is a thing removed. In finding this and understanding this (because of the freedom from death), we are free to begin living by our eternal nature, the spirit, and lay aside all the futility of 'the flesh'. The 'flesh' loses its power over us as we embrace the spirit.
The chapter is called 'Remember Who You Are' and uses the analogy of the ancient story of the Lion King, when Mufasa tells his runaway son to do this and insodoing return to what he was.
(In the book I also question the spirit's ability to die, surmising that it cannot for it has no body to be diseased or to falter or anything of the sort. I guess that a spirit created is a spirit forever and hypothesize that this is why places like the 'Lake of Fire' exist for these spirits rather than zapping them into nonexistence.)
So, while the knowledge of our own eternity is beneficial and enormously freeing, does it completely remove fear of death? I can't believe that we are to live life and go all the way through it having beliefs about death and only beliefs. I don't trust belief. I don't trust my mind, for it is futile and only cares about appeasing itself. How, then, to prove eternity?
Perhaps this is why Peter and Paul went around in the power of the spirit preaching and trying to prove the resurrection of Jesus, for by this we have the hope of resurrection... of eternity.
I plan on searching the Spirit (the good one) for eternity, for some promise of it, some greater hope. Some proof. And then it is my goal in life to prove eternity to everyone else.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
The Word, The Embodiment
John says that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The Word he was referring to was Jesus, and he was speaking of the entrance/coming of Jesus to our world, to creation.
I can’t help but be filled with joy at the observation of our creation when I consider deeply the nature of language, of our communication. It’s insanely creative that we can bring from the unseen world of thought a perceivable form of what is there – an object for the common reality. We all have our own little reality inside which is only observable and knowable by ourselves. But there is also the reality that is shared by everyone (however real or false it is), where matter is and can be observed and interacted with by everyone. I imagine a small red ball – my own reality. I see a small red ball – the common reality.
Words are a bridge from our inner reality to the common reality; they enable us to communicate what is going on inside, to make an object of our inner selves for the common reality. It’s a fantastic creation that these dime-thin vocal chords, and air pressure, and wind pipe movement can put out a combination of sounds that can be interpreted and perceived like the small red ball in the common reality.
And so it is that God, the one whom we cannot see or perceive with the resources we have to perceive the common reality, made an object of himself in Jesus. He is the word of God, the expression of God’s own unperceivable reality, the creation of God (as opposed to ‘by God’). The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us, John said.
What’s even more wild and joy-inspiring is the why of this Word: why did He do this? Why did He make an object of Himself and come to live among us? In fact the what and the why are synonymous; they define each other. He is love, so He came. He came, so He is love.
I can’t help but be filled with joy at the observation of our creation when I consider deeply the nature of language, of our communication. It’s insanely creative that we can bring from the unseen world of thought a perceivable form of what is there – an object for the common reality. We all have our own little reality inside which is only observable and knowable by ourselves. But there is also the reality that is shared by everyone (however real or false it is), where matter is and can be observed and interacted with by everyone. I imagine a small red ball – my own reality. I see a small red ball – the common reality.
Words are a bridge from our inner reality to the common reality; they enable us to communicate what is going on inside, to make an object of our inner selves for the common reality. It’s a fantastic creation that these dime-thin vocal chords, and air pressure, and wind pipe movement can put out a combination of sounds that can be interpreted and perceived like the small red ball in the common reality.
And so it is that God, the one whom we cannot see or perceive with the resources we have to perceive the common reality, made an object of himself in Jesus. He is the word of God, the expression of God’s own unperceivable reality, the creation of God (as opposed to ‘by God’). The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us, John said.
What’s even more wild and joy-inspiring is the why of this Word: why did He do this? Why did He make an object of Himself and come to live among us? In fact the what and the why are synonymous; they define each other. He is love, so He came. He came, so He is love.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Take My Life and Let it .... Be
For as long as I consider myself to have graduated from thinking like a child, I have been perplexed by the purposelessness of life. It seemed to me that being born, growing up, marrying, reproducing, raising children, having them grow up, marry, reproduce, and so on until the day you die is a bit of a waste of time. When all is said and done, it amounts to nothing more than what we started with – life is as life never was. A lot of people apply the life-after-death beliefs to add purpose to their lives, or they give a cold shoulder to the concept of death to extract purpose from their lives, or they say there’s purpose in their relationships. Even with all of those, with death, life is purposeless.
I came to realize that there is no purpose to what we call life because we have mis-defined life. If I were to ask you to tell me about your life, what would you say? Probably something about what you do for work, or what you’re studying, something about your family, your friends, your religion, where you live, your car, your house… your life! Most of us define our lives (and ourselves) by our interaction to and relation with the world of objects. The purpose is missing because the world of objects is passing, is non-concrete, is ending. I think there are very few people – very few – who would define their life in terms of non-matter, of non-relation to other things. And I suspect these people, who have found another way to define their lives and themselves, are much happier than the rest of us.
The busy world of matter, where we live and out of which we are created, is so engaging and distracting. It’s difficult to get an outside view of it, especially a lasting one. The mind, the part of us that relates to the world of matter, is so busy sensing the world, reacting to the world, engaging the world, and defining itself by the world, that it creates a sort of glaze over our true eyes, the eyes of our hearts. It’s an unconscious way of living that most of us spend our entire lives under. It’s so sad to see that everything we define ourselves by, and everything we obtain our worth from, and the entire novel describing ‘my life’ is a complete and utter myth. We live a lie, and it’s destructive.
It’s clear then why Jesus said, “whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” over and over again (Matt. 10:39, 16:25, Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24, 17:33, John 12:25). We had always thought this was a special word for those who’d be martyrs for him, but Jesus, the one who brought salvation, was talking about stepping out of the life that is a complete figment of the imagination, and to step into real life – to ‘find it’. He whose project was to make us whole again was telling us to stop living the false life, and in so doing, find true life.
The truth of the matter is that ‘my life’ has nothing to do with the world of matter; ‘my life’ is something that is flawed even in the way we give the concept language. There is nothing to call ‘my life’, as if it’s something I possess, rather than something I am. Our true definition and purpose comes from being alive, which has nothing to do with possession, but with being awake. Jesus, who lived as the perfect example, said “I am the life”, which is true compared to “I have a life”. Again, our identity comes up – I am. I just am. I don’t have life, I am life. This is such a fundamental truth. So simple, yet so hidden behind the relentlessly busy mind.
Thank God: the knowledge of illusion is the end of illusion.
I came to realize that there is no purpose to what we call life because we have mis-defined life. If I were to ask you to tell me about your life, what would you say? Probably something about what you do for work, or what you’re studying, something about your family, your friends, your religion, where you live, your car, your house… your life! Most of us define our lives (and ourselves) by our interaction to and relation with the world of objects. The purpose is missing because the world of objects is passing, is non-concrete, is ending. I think there are very few people – very few – who would define their life in terms of non-matter, of non-relation to other things. And I suspect these people, who have found another way to define their lives and themselves, are much happier than the rest of us.
The busy world of matter, where we live and out of which we are created, is so engaging and distracting. It’s difficult to get an outside view of it, especially a lasting one. The mind, the part of us that relates to the world of matter, is so busy sensing the world, reacting to the world, engaging the world, and defining itself by the world, that it creates a sort of glaze over our true eyes, the eyes of our hearts. It’s an unconscious way of living that most of us spend our entire lives under. It’s so sad to see that everything we define ourselves by, and everything we obtain our worth from, and the entire novel describing ‘my life’ is a complete and utter myth. We live a lie, and it’s destructive.
It’s clear then why Jesus said, “whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” over and over again (Matt. 10:39, 16:25, Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24, 17:33, John 12:25). We had always thought this was a special word for those who’d be martyrs for him, but Jesus, the one who brought salvation, was talking about stepping out of the life that is a complete figment of the imagination, and to step into real life – to ‘find it’. He whose project was to make us whole again was telling us to stop living the false life, and in so doing, find true life.
The truth of the matter is that ‘my life’ has nothing to do with the world of matter; ‘my life’ is something that is flawed even in the way we give the concept language. There is nothing to call ‘my life’, as if it’s something I possess, rather than something I am. Our true definition and purpose comes from being alive, which has nothing to do with possession, but with being awake. Jesus, who lived as the perfect example, said “I am the life”, which is true compared to “I have a life”. Again, our identity comes up – I am. I just am. I don’t have life, I am life. This is such a fundamental truth. So simple, yet so hidden behind the relentlessly busy mind.
Thank God: the knowledge of illusion is the end of illusion.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Perception, Truth, and Acceptance
There has got to be one truth, regardless of the limitless number of perceptions, and therefore interpretations, of it. Take yourself for example – unknown in truth by everyone, even your own self. Your spouse could be talking to you, telling you something very important, but in length, so your mind begins to wander. What appears to her as attentive listening (her perception) is actually a façade (an assumption of her mind), behind which is a mind trying to remember what you forgot to pick up at Home Depot. The perception is false, and whose fault is it? Is there any fault at all? Isn't it just 'nature'?
Words are a wildly creative and ingenious phenomena in our communication with other people. It’s amazing that 5 vowel sounds, and several other harder sounds created by buzzing vocal chords and the muscular shaping of the sound pipe, can be combined to make expression of our thoughts. Though ingenious and incredible to think about, words are not perfect; in fact, they fall far short of our intentions. Like the example with the wandering mind above, the words create the façade, or more adequately, the object which can be observed and interpreted by another. The object representing his present thoughts about Home Depot was a face expressing interest and attentiveness - or so it was perceived. The object, or manifestation, of his true self was falsely communicated or perceived, and most often this is the case with our words as well.
There are so many steps in communication – thought, expression, observation, interpretation. I think something, I create an object of it by speaking, the other party observes the object I created, and interprets it into thoughts of their own. The goal is to have my thoughts and your thoughts equal each other after the communication has happened. I’m sure this never happens perfectly. I think that is a truth we need to accept – it could help in our relationships.
There are so many ways we manifest ourselves and what is going on inside, and there are a million ways to interpret or perceive it. This is the case with Jesus too. No matter what his choices of words were (as one coming into the world of human interaction), it was open to interpretation and perception. Even words written, and the words of Paul and Peter and John, and all the prophets before Christ are just words, and are imperfect.
There is no wonder why there are 30,000 denominations then. I had always thought that there were this many interpretations because there were this many stages in the journey (of which the longest part is the learning of truth, the renewal of the mind). But I’ve come to understand that it is because of the interpretations, the perceptions, themselves. There are as many different perceptions of Christ as there have been people, and this is something we should also accept.
'Spirit and Truth' – this is something of a higher level of communication, and has to do with intimacy with God. Intimacy is the ultimate form of communication – it is the full knowing – it passes the communication, interpretation, perception stage, it passes words and comes to understanding. This knowledge in ‘spirit and in truth’ has surpassed communication of the minds, using words and objects and thoughts, and has gone from spirit to spirit, heart to heart.
Many people Jesus spoke to could not understand what the heck he was talking about with all his stories. Understanding this, Jesus would often wrap things up by saying ‘He who has ears let him hear’ (Matt. 13:9), which would probably cause further confusion. Noticing this lack of understanding in the people, ‘the disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"
He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts and turn,
and I would heal them.
But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.”’
Matthew 13:9-16
Understanding that the knowledge of Christ is acceptable to every human being – whether intelligent or thick, seeing or blind, hearing or deaf, even children, even those whose mental capacity is severely damaged – helps us to understand the way to knowing Christ. We’ve got to get to know the person of Christ, which has nothing to do with his outer expression – his words, his height, his clothes, his facial expressions, his diet, the way he walked. If knowing him meant knowing these things, salvation would only be for those alive in Israel 2000 years ago. Knowing the true Him, knowing Him in truth comes by heart language, by intimacy, not by head language. This is just something we need to accept in order to move forward.
Words are a wildly creative and ingenious phenomena in our communication with other people. It’s amazing that 5 vowel sounds, and several other harder sounds created by buzzing vocal chords and the muscular shaping of the sound pipe, can be combined to make expression of our thoughts. Though ingenious and incredible to think about, words are not perfect; in fact, they fall far short of our intentions. Like the example with the wandering mind above, the words create the façade, or more adequately, the object which can be observed and interpreted by another. The object representing his present thoughts about Home Depot was a face expressing interest and attentiveness - or so it was perceived. The object, or manifestation, of his true self was falsely communicated or perceived, and most often this is the case with our words as well.
There are so many steps in communication – thought, expression, observation, interpretation. I think something, I create an object of it by speaking, the other party observes the object I created, and interprets it into thoughts of their own. The goal is to have my thoughts and your thoughts equal each other after the communication has happened. I’m sure this never happens perfectly. I think that is a truth we need to accept – it could help in our relationships.
There are so many ways we manifest ourselves and what is going on inside, and there are a million ways to interpret or perceive it. This is the case with Jesus too. No matter what his choices of words were (as one coming into the world of human interaction), it was open to interpretation and perception. Even words written, and the words of Paul and Peter and John, and all the prophets before Christ are just words, and are imperfect.
There is no wonder why there are 30,000 denominations then. I had always thought that there were this many interpretations because there were this many stages in the journey (of which the longest part is the learning of truth, the renewal of the mind). But I’ve come to understand that it is because of the interpretations, the perceptions, themselves. There are as many different perceptions of Christ as there have been people, and this is something we should also accept.
'Spirit and Truth' – this is something of a higher level of communication, and has to do with intimacy with God. Intimacy is the ultimate form of communication – it is the full knowing – it passes the communication, interpretation, perception stage, it passes words and comes to understanding. This knowledge in ‘spirit and in truth’ has surpassed communication of the minds, using words and objects and thoughts, and has gone from spirit to spirit, heart to heart.
Many people Jesus spoke to could not understand what the heck he was talking about with all his stories. Understanding this, Jesus would often wrap things up by saying ‘He who has ears let him hear’ (Matt. 13:9), which would probably cause further confusion. Noticing this lack of understanding in the people, ‘the disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"
He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts and turn,
and I would heal them.
But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.”’
Matthew 13:9-16
Understanding that the knowledge of Christ is acceptable to every human being – whether intelligent or thick, seeing or blind, hearing or deaf, even children, even those whose mental capacity is severely damaged – helps us to understand the way to knowing Christ. We’ve got to get to know the person of Christ, which has nothing to do with his outer expression – his words, his height, his clothes, his facial expressions, his diet, the way he walked. If knowing him meant knowing these things, salvation would only be for those alive in Israel 2000 years ago. Knowing the true Him, knowing Him in truth comes by heart language, by intimacy, not by head language. This is just something we need to accept in order to move forward.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Identity to Last
It seems in us is a need for identity, for self-definition, and separation. We want so much to be either associated or disassociated, known for something or as something, and called a certain way. A lot of this has to do with the ego, whose food is identity, and whose position is lost as we enter ‘the kingdom of heaven’.
In our relationship with the world of matter – including our own bodies as matter – we define ourselves by our relationship with its parts. Someone who owns a house proudly states “I am a homeowner” should it come up; someone who goes to school says “I am a student”. Most of the time, our communication to the world of matter is nonverbal, which can simply be driving your shiny 2008 car, which in some way identifies you (ie. you are better able to afford this car than someone else).
Identity can be an association with a religion, with a city, with a country, a race, a political party, even with a gender. In fact, from very early on, we learn how to display our identity as a male or a female. We dress our baby girls in pink and our boys in blue; we demonstrate the identity of the sexes to them as they grow up by involving them with the cooking or working on the car, playing catch, etc.
A lot of the time, identity is in not being something, or not associating with something, or in not thinking a certain way. And the ego comes in, wanting always to be right in either its choices or its non-choices, and points out the flaws of the other way, or points out the best points of our way. The ego feeds on being right.
Identity involves matter, and very rarely non-matter. Many have led themselves down long, dark, and even deadly paths finding much of their identity (and thus worth) in their physical appearance. We identity ourselves as beautiful and enjoy the attention that brings, but when beauty fades, that inner person is left to find something else to grasp onto for identity – or maybe it tries endlessly to never let the beauty fade (plastic surgery?). In our quest to identify with the ‘better thing’ (ie. strength instead of weakness), we go to great lengths to identify ourselves with strength. For the strong of body, spending hours at the gym, having large arms, toning certain muscle groups to maximize the appearance of strength. For the strong of mind, spending years at school or in personal study. If we identify ourselves with the weak thing, we either beef up the weak thing, or highlight our strength and make it stronger.
Not that this is all bad, nor an absolute (ie. not all guys who work out for hours on end have a self-worth problem). This is a commentary.
However, all the things we seem to find identity and self-worth in are temporary; they fade away. What wisdom is there in that? I think it is wisdom to strip away everything we identify with that corresponds to something that won’t last as long as we will – this includes assets, anything to do with our bodies, maybe even our relationships – and to start building again from that foundational core being that we are and add to it things of value and worth and duration.
Each of us is not a body, or a mind, we are a spirit, or some would call it a consciousness. What of you can observe the endless chatter of the mind? What part of you is that in there? What part of you doesn’t belong to the perceived or perceiving world? The world of matter is of the perceiving world, is related to the mind as the perceiver. And there is something deeper in, which is not perceived by the mind, but perceives the mind – the real you – the true existence.
At some point down the road, we get to a point of realization or revelation, when we become true sons of our Father, being like Him, when we can say ‘I Am’, which is how He identifies Himself. We can stop saying I am male, I am 25, I am a supervisor, I am 6 feet tall, I have a blog, my favourite colour is green, I drive a black Civic, I am Canadian, I am this, that, and everything else. I just am. I am. This is where we are going - the simplest, yet the most meaningful existence. It’s an identity that lasts forever.
In our relationship with the world of matter – including our own bodies as matter – we define ourselves by our relationship with its parts. Someone who owns a house proudly states “I am a homeowner” should it come up; someone who goes to school says “I am a student”. Most of the time, our communication to the world of matter is nonverbal, which can simply be driving your shiny 2008 car, which in some way identifies you (ie. you are better able to afford this car than someone else).
Identity can be an association with a religion, with a city, with a country, a race, a political party, even with a gender. In fact, from very early on, we learn how to display our identity as a male or a female. We dress our baby girls in pink and our boys in blue; we demonstrate the identity of the sexes to them as they grow up by involving them with the cooking or working on the car, playing catch, etc.
A lot of the time, identity is in not being something, or not associating with something, or in not thinking a certain way. And the ego comes in, wanting always to be right in either its choices or its non-choices, and points out the flaws of the other way, or points out the best points of our way. The ego feeds on being right.
Identity involves matter, and very rarely non-matter. Many have led themselves down long, dark, and even deadly paths finding much of their identity (and thus worth) in their physical appearance. We identity ourselves as beautiful and enjoy the attention that brings, but when beauty fades, that inner person is left to find something else to grasp onto for identity – or maybe it tries endlessly to never let the beauty fade (plastic surgery?). In our quest to identify with the ‘better thing’ (ie. strength instead of weakness), we go to great lengths to identify ourselves with strength. For the strong of body, spending hours at the gym, having large arms, toning certain muscle groups to maximize the appearance of strength. For the strong of mind, spending years at school or in personal study. If we identify ourselves with the weak thing, we either beef up the weak thing, or highlight our strength and make it stronger.
Not that this is all bad, nor an absolute (ie. not all guys who work out for hours on end have a self-worth problem). This is a commentary.
However, all the things we seem to find identity and self-worth in are temporary; they fade away. What wisdom is there in that? I think it is wisdom to strip away everything we identify with that corresponds to something that won’t last as long as we will – this includes assets, anything to do with our bodies, maybe even our relationships – and to start building again from that foundational core being that we are and add to it things of value and worth and duration.
Each of us is not a body, or a mind, we are a spirit, or some would call it a consciousness. What of you can observe the endless chatter of the mind? What part of you is that in there? What part of you doesn’t belong to the perceived or perceiving world? The world of matter is of the perceiving world, is related to the mind as the perceiver. And there is something deeper in, which is not perceived by the mind, but perceives the mind – the real you – the true existence.
At some point down the road, we get to a point of realization or revelation, when we become true sons of our Father, being like Him, when we can say ‘I Am’, which is how He identifies Himself. We can stop saying I am male, I am 25, I am a supervisor, I am 6 feet tall, I have a blog, my favourite colour is green, I drive a black Civic, I am Canadian, I am this, that, and everything else. I just am. I am. This is where we are going - the simplest, yet the most meaningful existence. It’s an identity that lasts forever.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
How Long Must I Wait
song by Phil Wickham
I close my eyes, I'm trying to listen
'cause it's been so long since I heard you speak
Send your love, cover over the distance -
between you and me
Oh, how long must I wait for my love?
'Cause I need you, oh I need you
My heart is bursting and breaking apart
oh my love
Come on and blind my eyes, I'm looking to heaven
Holding all your promises against my chest
I offer up the life I've been given -
to my last breath
Oh, how long must I wait for my love?
'Cause I need you, oh I need you
My heart is bursting and breaking apart
for my love
You're coming just as sure as the sun is rising
Here comes the day it's breaking in my heart!
Your children are running to you!
Oh, how long must I wait for my love?
'Cause I need you, oh I need you
My heart is bursting and breaking apart
oh my love
I close my eyes, I'm trying to listen
'cause it's been so long since I heard you speak
Send your love, cover over the distance -
between you and me
Oh, how long must I wait for my love?
'Cause I need you, oh I need you
My heart is bursting and breaking apart
oh my love
Come on and blind my eyes, I'm looking to heaven
Holding all your promises against my chest
I offer up the life I've been given -
to my last breath
Oh, how long must I wait for my love?
'Cause I need you, oh I need you
My heart is bursting and breaking apart
for my love
You're coming just as sure as the sun is rising
Here comes the day it's breaking in my heart!
Your children are running to you!
Oh, how long must I wait for my love?
'Cause I need you, oh I need you
My heart is bursting and breaking apart
oh my love
The Pearl and the Price
"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.
"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.” Matthew 13:44-46
These can give us some great information about the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ which Jesus often talked about. In the first mini-parable the kingdom is the treasure, in the second one the kingdom is the merchant looking for treasure.
In the first, Jesus is saying that the kingdom, upon finding, is worth giving up all of your possessions and your whole life to obtain. The second says it’s a two-way street. We are the pearl that he found, and in his passion, went away and sold everything he had to buy it. (He does not say the kingdom is the treasure in both).
My main point is of the latter parable, where we are pearls of great price, not the kingdom, as a lot of people say. I want to talk about the price – the first great sacrifice – our price. Has it ever struck you that Jesus, long before he ever went to the cross, was forgiving people of their sins? In Matthew 9:2, for example, he says: “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven”.
In fact, Mark 1:4 says: “so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (and Luke 3:3). When Jesus showed up at the Jordan one day, John said of him: “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). It seems there was something in the presence of Christ on earth that meant that the forgiveness of sins was possible.
And lo, we miss this sacrifice. We get the big one, the crucifixion, which was the payment for sin, but we miss the first one. Christ forsook forever his place, the nature of his being, the pure oneness, and took on flesh to carry out this salvation plan. He was ‘knitted together’ in a human body, ‘since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity’ (Hebrews 2:14). Jesus, ‘who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness’ (Philippians 2:6-7).
Christ, the King of the Kingdom, ‘sold everything he had’ to buy us, the pearls of his great price.
In my post The End of Salvation I discussed the culmination of salvation being a marriage, or a reversal of what was wrong in Genesis when Eve was created out of Adam (for this reason… the two will become one flesh). In Summary of Salvation, I said “Becoming one (in ‘marriage’) with another who has already died and can never die again gives us freedom from death”. Christ had to come, in body, to become one with us as the only way to give us everlasting life. His arrival on the earth was an allowance for the forgiveness of sins (which causes death) to begin!
Now, this is just me speculating, because there isn’t anything to back me up here, but logically, God, who we have labeled a Trinity (3 parts) wasn’t always this way. Could it be that before anything was created, there was one God, total, whole, complete, perfect? And for this rescue of man to take place, the very being of God had to undergo some sort of split or fracture?
It would seem that because correcting the split of Adam into more than 1 being involves an eternal union of man and Christ, that there must be some degree of separation between Christ and Father. In fact, Christ spoke of His Father as a completely other being all the time. But both are God. Was there always this separation, or was there one complete being originally? If 3, we get into cause and effect; who begat who? Is there more to the God story?
My point is that the birth of Christ allowed for the forgiveness of sins. Water, symbol of flesh, was used in baptism; full immersion to indicate entry into the Body of Christ – the Body of Christ, ever think of that? The Body of Christ, in the manger, the Body of Christ. Some things to chew on…
"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.” Matthew 13:44-46
These can give us some great information about the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ which Jesus often talked about. In the first mini-parable the kingdom is the treasure, in the second one the kingdom is the merchant looking for treasure.
In the first, Jesus is saying that the kingdom, upon finding, is worth giving up all of your possessions and your whole life to obtain. The second says it’s a two-way street. We are the pearl that he found, and in his passion, went away and sold everything he had to buy it. (He does not say the kingdom is the treasure in both).
My main point is of the latter parable, where we are pearls of great price, not the kingdom, as a lot of people say. I want to talk about the price – the first great sacrifice – our price. Has it ever struck you that Jesus, long before he ever went to the cross, was forgiving people of their sins? In Matthew 9:2, for example, he says: “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven”.
In fact, Mark 1:4 says: “so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (and Luke 3:3). When Jesus showed up at the Jordan one day, John said of him: “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). It seems there was something in the presence of Christ on earth that meant that the forgiveness of sins was possible.
And lo, we miss this sacrifice. We get the big one, the crucifixion, which was the payment for sin, but we miss the first one. Christ forsook forever his place, the nature of his being, the pure oneness, and took on flesh to carry out this salvation plan. He was ‘knitted together’ in a human body, ‘since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity’ (Hebrews 2:14). Jesus, ‘who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness’ (Philippians 2:6-7).
Christ, the King of the Kingdom, ‘sold everything he had’ to buy us, the pearls of his great price.
In my post The End of Salvation I discussed the culmination of salvation being a marriage, or a reversal of what was wrong in Genesis when Eve was created out of Adam (for this reason… the two will become one flesh). In Summary of Salvation, I said “Becoming one (in ‘marriage’) with another who has already died and can never die again gives us freedom from death”. Christ had to come, in body, to become one with us as the only way to give us everlasting life. His arrival on the earth was an allowance for the forgiveness of sins (which causes death) to begin!
Now, this is just me speculating, because there isn’t anything to back me up here, but logically, God, who we have labeled a Trinity (3 parts) wasn’t always this way. Could it be that before anything was created, there was one God, total, whole, complete, perfect? And for this rescue of man to take place, the very being of God had to undergo some sort of split or fracture?
It would seem that because correcting the split of Adam into more than 1 being involves an eternal union of man and Christ, that there must be some degree of separation between Christ and Father. In fact, Christ spoke of His Father as a completely other being all the time. But both are God. Was there always this separation, or was there one complete being originally? If 3, we get into cause and effect; who begat who? Is there more to the God story?
My point is that the birth of Christ allowed for the forgiveness of sins. Water, symbol of flesh, was used in baptism; full immersion to indicate entry into the Body of Christ – the Body of Christ, ever think of that? The Body of Christ, in the manger, the Body of Christ. Some things to chew on…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
