Observations

A couple days ago I posted an article on Facebook titled, "Hell Is a Myth -- Actually, a Bunch of Myths," by Jon M. Sweeney.  Jon Sweeney has a very interesting bio and an interesting religious story.  You should check it out sometime.  It would give you a little insight to why he writes the way he does: (http://jonmsweeney.wordpress.com/about/).  

There were a few observations I would like to share from the overwhelming response to this article.  First, was the extreme emotional response, it began on one end of the spectrum with no middle ground.  Many took the article and "shared" it on their timeline, saying, "great article", "good stuff", "things to think about" amongst others.  Then on the other end there were outcries of heresy, apostasy, poison, Satanic, etc.  Some well-intentioned folks gave warnings of the dangers of the article--some spiritual warnings, other warnings about the Huff Post as terrible source to get info. You get my point.  

As with any controversial subject that threatens the status quo, it begins with a little fun, but slowly leads to reaching into the very soul of a person and pulling out what they are really passionate about.  I heard somebody say a long time ago, "Show me somebody's anger and I'll show you what they are passionate about."  Well, I learned very quickly that there were a lot of people passionate about the subject of hell and the "realness" of it.  I tried as hard as I could to understand why folks could be so passionate about it.  I mean, hey, I was the one that posted it so it shows that I'm pretty passionate about it too--maybe just in a little different way.  The only thing that my brain could assume would be this: good intentioned religious people need a way to justify their feelings for justice.  I can understand this...I know some people that I can think of that deserve, in my opinion, a fiery, tortured, existence--forever.  That sounds really harsh, and I'm embarrassed to say such mean things, but I'm sure the thought has come to your mind as well.  Now this thought doesn't stay with me and I usually feel bad the next day for thinking this horrible thought, but I have thought it.  Have you ever been really, really, really deeply hurt where you just couldn't forgive and move on in life?  No matter how bad you wanted to, you just couldn't let it go.  That is where the "calming effect" of hell comes in.  It takes care of all the people who don't believe like we do.  Hell is all about "pay back."  The eternal "told you so."  The, "you got what you deserved" forever.  Hell is human, reconciliation--now that is God! What is the "hell" of the Bible all about?  Reconciliation, or payback...God or human? 

Are we "ok" with folks not believing exactly like us?  What is the "deal killer" where we take our cards off the table and not play?  Is "hell" the deal breaker/killer?  How about this, what if I or whoever has a different view of hell than you do, but still believes in some kind of eternal separation of God...is that ok or not...when will we stop saying "You are not Biblical" if our interpretation of a 2000 year old text is different.  I know I'm asking a lot of questions, but if our interpretation is the only interpretation, and the only right interpretation would that makes us a god unto ourselves?  If God truly made human beings in his own image, I believe that every person has something valuable to offer...regardless of religious affiliation.  I can learn from the Christian, the Buddhist, the Taoist, the Atheist, etc--you get the point.  No one group has a monopoly on an all powerful, all knowing, perfect, unchanging God.  I, personally, think the Bible--the whole thing is awesome, but I'm not going to close my eyes to everything else.  If God spoke the world into existence then the whole universe is God's word.  To neglect certain aspects is to close yourself into a created box where suddenly a created god becomes the deity of that box.  This box can be all of those things I mentioned above--Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, and even Atheism.  Why do we feel we need to build fortified cities surrounded by moats that we have to fill with people, and then pull up the drawbridge keeping everybody inside?  It then becomes a "us" "them" battle.  Those on the inside need to fight those on the outside--its totally like medieval movies where cities fight each other.  It's like "Lord of the Rings" where anybody on the outside trying to come in, is an Ork.  Religion launch their propaganda with catapults over the city walls hoping to "strike down the enemy."  Christians (and other religions) launch bible verses (or whatever their book may be) while atheists launch intellect.  Both in boxes--fortified cities launching hate with "politically correct" verbiage like "it's all in love", "trying to save their soul," etc.  

Last point, "hell" is such a minor.  Seriously!  Yes, I know I'm the one posting it, but my purpose was to prove that the minors have become the majors.  I got an email that said, "There are some things we just don't question, and one of those things is hell."  Really...really?!?!  So, we should just blindly accept what somebody told us in order to create fear.  Fear's purpose is to control and have power over, as well as rob a person's identity.  Let's get real for just a second.  Let's talk about the Jesus in the Bible--not the Jesus in church, not the Jesus in the paintings, not the Jesus we ask into our heart while every head is bowed and every eye closed--let's talk about Jesus...the one who claimed to be God, was a Jew, lived 2000 years ago, was a carpenter (tekton to be precise), as well as a religious figure--a rabbi.  

This Jesus came into a corrupt religious system, which was the most popular and accepted religion in the area he lived--and wrecked it.  He challenged the beliefs of every religious leader he came in contact with and questioned everything.  He busted up traditions left and right.  Changed 300 gallons of water into wine and threw a huge party (that's not very conservative now is it).  He hung out with some riffraffs, appeared homeless, used very strong language (calling some of the religious leaders, "sons of hell"), and was finally killed by a some backbiting religious leaders who had Rome do it for them.  If we are supposed to follow this "Christ" as "Christians" we've got a lot of "hell to raise," and I would argue, we aren't doing a very good job--myself included.  If my little pathetic post on hell offended you, would you be offended if Jesus came to your church during offering time and dumped all the plates on the floor--then began to yell?  Oh, my Jesus wouldn't do that--or would he?  What if He told you that the precious church building that people sacrificed their time, money, blood, sweat, and tears through years of building campaigning, fundraising, and bake sales was going to crumble--because it's not the subject--He is.  Would you be mad?  What if He looked at you square in the eyes and said, "You've had it wrong this whole time...you are a teacher/pastor and don't know these things."(kind of like he told Nicodemus)  How would that make you feel?  What if he looked at you and said, "I spoke a whole lot more than what you have in your little Bible" (John 21:25)...would you look at him and say, "Well, my Jesus gave me everything I need in what I've already got--I don't need anything else."  

Maybe Depeche Mode wasn't far off when they wrote the song, "Personal Jesus."  I believe Jesus would rock our little religious world.  He's rocking mine right now!!  I just have to let him be Jesus and not Nate...or what I would like him to be--the punisher and the one who will cast the unbelieving infidels into a fiery hell (I'm sure some of you will send me Luke 12:5 on this one--I'm trying to anticipate it).  Did Jesus preach hell to the religious or unbelieving damned?  Answer this, and you may be surprised that Jesus wasn't Christian and didn't promote the Christian hell.  I believe in the hell Jesus talked about--The Hades, the Sheol, and the Gehanna.  I don't quite yet understand the hell (Tartarus) that 2 Peter speaks of because he is borrowing this straight out of mythology for some purpose--I just can't understand that purpose yet.  I don't believe God is sending people to these places, but self-righteous religious folks who think they have all the answers, send themselves there because they've become a god to themselves...it's a little thing called "idolatry."  1 Corinthians 10:12 in context it is pretty clear--it is written to the religious who think they've arrived--"He who thinks he stands/strong, be careful because you may fall."  Jesus directed hell towards the religious of his day--what has changed?

One Sentence Blog Post

One Sentence Blog Post

Why would a vast, all knowing, all powerful, limitless God who created the entire universe, limit himself to one book, one people, and one religion (or one denomination)? 

Religion Thrēskeía

religion |riˈlijən|

noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion.
• a particular system of faith and worship: the world's great religions.
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance

James 1:27
"Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world."

What a tough subject..."religion."  A subject that has been very important to me and a subject I spend the majority of my life studying and involved/immersed in.  It was always a "love/hate" kind of relationship.  Above you see the English definition and then a Bible verse.  Below I want to give an explanation of the Greek word "Thrēskeía" that was translated in English for readers as "religion."

"The Greek word thrēskeía denotes properly both cult and piety. It has a curious history in Greek itself. According to Van Herten thrēskeía was applied only to foreign cults; whereas in fact, in the Augustan period, the word may designate every cult, whether indigenous or foreign. The word is ancient. It appears for the first time in Herodotus and then disappears completely from the tradition to reappear in the time of Strabo. From then on examples multiply both in texts and in inscriptions. The word is properly Ionic, and it did not find its way into Attic, but it later became popular because it was the most convenient term to designate a complex of beliefs and cult practices.
The first uses, two of thrēskeíē and two of the verb thrēskeúein, all in Herodotus in his second book, relate to observances:

“The Egyptians, the neighbors of the Libyans, did not tolerate the regulation of the sacrifice and especially the prohibition of the flesh of the cow” (II, 18).

Elsewhere Herodotus refers to the rules of physical purity to which the Egyptian priests subject themselves. Then he adds:

“They observe a thousand other thrēskeías” (II, 37): these are practices imposed on priests.

Such is also the meaning of the verb thrēskeúō (II, 64; 65) “to follow minutely religious prescriptions,” and always with reference to the Egyptians.

The idea is thus that of “observance,” a notion of practice rather than belief. Thanks to scattered testimony we can reach further back into the history of the word. The substantive thrēskeía derives, curiously enough, from a present tense in -skō which we have in the form of a gloss in Hesychius: thrḗsko: noô and also thráskein: anamimnḗskein “cause to recollect.”
Thrḗskō in its turn is susceptible of analysis: it goes back to a verb *thréō which is attested by enthreîn: phulássein ‘guard, observe’.
We can add a further link to this chain of words: *thréō presupposes a root *ther-, and this enables us to attach to it the adjective atherés which is glossed anóēton ‘senseless’ and, what is more interesting, anósion ‘impious’. Finally, atherés lies at the base of the Homeric present tense atherízō ‘to neglect, make light of’.

All these data link up and are complementary to the notion which the word thrēskeía itself evokes: that of “observance,” “rule of religious practice.” It links up with a verbal stem denoting attentiveness to a rite, preoccupation with being faithful to rule. It is not “religion” as a whole but the observance of the obligations of cult." [Benveniste, Indo-European Language and Society] -
Aryan Hyperborean Heritage

The idea of "observance" is very profound.  I struggle with idea because for a long time I thought it was about "beliefs."  Even though I think "belief" is important, I also think "beliefs" are very personal.  Religion becomes a HUGE PROBLEM when beliefs are argued.  Belief forges its beginnings in experience.  Experiences forge their beginnings in upbringing, environment, and cultural conditioning.  Therefore, beliefs will differ--even within the same religion--because experiences differ and are personal.  Experiences shape us, yet struggle to answer complex questions that come up.  For instance, in one of my Facebook posts I asked you to share with me questions you have for me to research and blog about.  Here is a list of questions from real people, that a "belief system" have not answered:

• Prayer--what in the world is it.  Everybody does "it' differently.  Is it real?
• Jesus
• Shift in moral consensus over time
  How can we claim that the Biblical text is infallible, inspired, useful, etc. when our own moral understanding as human beings has changed so drastically since its writing?  I'm not talking about moral growth, I'm talking about how the Bible endorses things, especially in the Old Testament, that we openly reject today as immoral (women as property, slavery, violence, etc.).
• Doctrinal confusion
  I heard a quote recently to the effect of "God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33), but can you think of a book that has caused more confusion that the Bible?" (I believe it was Sam Harris).  If we really have a divine hand guiding believers on earth, why the incredible doctrinal fragmentation?  How does that make Christianity superior to other religions that also can't decide internally exactly what they believe (Islam and Buddhism spring to mind as good examples)?
• World religions and cultural origins of belief
  Why does a person's religion depend so heavily on your place and culture of birth?  Most people are completely convinced of the truth of their religion (or non-religion), and that is mostly determined by how they were raised.  Why isn't a true religion transforming lives and "winning" over the "false" ones?  Could it be that the power of religion is largely internal and doesn't really arise from an external source?
• Biblical references to demonic "miracles"
  Why does the Bible talk about magic, witchcraft, etc. as though it was real and could have real effects on the world? (Saul and the witch of Endor, Pharoah's magicians duplicating Moses' miracles, etc.).  As far as we have seen in the modern world (basically since cameras and recording equipment have become commonplace), events like these just don't happen.  What differentiates the supposed reality of those evil supernatural occurrences from the good things that God does, and since we don't see occurrences of either happening in the modern world how are we to react to descriptions of "evil" miracles or demonic power?
• People who feel the Holy Spirit
  How do we square the fact that people across different cultures and conflicting religions experience similar feelings of divine inspiration, guidance, peace, etc?  Surely they can't all be right, so does that mean that a lot of our interaction with the Holy Spirit is imagined or simply arises from within our own minds?  It's a bit hyperbolic, but suicide bombers likely feel the same conviction about the correctness of their actions as we do of ours.

...and the list goes on and on.  I received several emails with questions for me to answer, a bit overwhelming actually.  I will never be able to get to all of these, so I thought I would attempt to address all of them by speaking about religion in general.   By giving you what I believe would be for me to create more problems in the world of "religion."  That is what people fight over, because everybody truly believes their perspective is the right one without taking into consideration what formed that belief. 

Instead, I will try as hard as I can to stick within the parameters of the definition of "Thrēskeía..."  WARNING: I'm sure my context will influence me and I probably will subconsciously get into my beliefs--that I apologize for, and I hope you can look beyond my context and into your context, and apply it. 

Rather than belief, Thrēskeía focuses on observance.  Therefore to be "religious" would to become an "observer."  To observe is the action of watching or noticing something.  Observation also includes collecting data about that which you are observing and then acting based upon what was collected.  Now it gets really deep here because this is where the lines between science and religion get really blurry. 

Follow me very closely...In quantum physics, which deals with the behavior of very small objects (like our own little subcultures we all live in), it is not possible to observe a system (our own subcultures) without changing the system, and the "observer" must be considered part of the system being observed.  Is this what was meant by writers like, Paul, James, and John when they spoke of "being in the world but not of the world?" The only way to see the world for how it really is, is to metaphysically separate yourself from that which you are entrenched in.  You must, in essence, step outside of yourself and observe it from a distance.  When you see that which you are in, from an outside perspective, you can then act upon it accordingly.  That is why successful organizations bring in outside consultants who have no idea about their organization to suggest changes.  The people within the organization sometimes become blinded by being "in it" for so long. 

Have you ever told one of your kids to stop doing something, and they have no idea what you are talking about because they don't realize they are doing it.  My son is a prime example.  He developed a few habits that were so much a part of him, he subconsciously acted upon them and didn't even realize it.  As a matter of fact, when I told him what he was doing he would argue with me because he truly believed he wasn't doing them--until he saw them from an outside perspective.  We told him we were going to video tape him doing it so he could see it for himself.  Have you ever recorded yourself either on video or audio and say, "I can't believe I sound like that or act like that."  It is because you are observing yourself from outside yourself.  This is the beginning of understanding religion in its truest sense.  It is honestly looking at what you are in for what it truly is--both the beauty and ugliness.  It is to unbiasly collect the data from what you have observed and changing it based upon the facts.  For the people of the Bible, they were so immersed in their subculture that orphans and widows were a common thing.  Therefore, since it was so "normal" and "common," an every day occurance, nothing got done--these people were neglected.  The culture was becoming self-centered and people were trying to convert others by "beliefs" rather than changing their subculture into a better place.  I've been in towns where most people go to church and have similar beliefs, but the poverty level, crime level, and morality level was no different than a town were church attendance was much lower.

So much of religion today is based on converting people to our beliefs and experiences rather than stepping outside of ourselves and looking at our world for what it really is, what it is supposed to be, and what it can become. If we observe our world without stepping outside our self then we will just try to create the world we are observing into what we already are, rather than what it really needs.  This is the problem with religion, especially Christianity.  Why do you think there are so many denominations?  We must "be in it, but not of it." Your question is ready to be answered right outside your self.   Lech lecha my friends!!