Axiomatic Religion What a week. I've been rather unfocused in everything I've done, especially in my reading. I picked up a copy of Karen Armstrongs "History of God" but I haven't really delved into it, I've only dipped. I also picked up a few of Bishop Spong's books and ran across his treatment of "the Fundamentals." The Fundamentals are a list of items that all 'true' Christians must believe and Spong rebutted all of them (or at least, all of the ones that he mentions). One of the items was that 'true' Christians must believe in the Mosiac authorship of the pentateuch.
Moses was a prophet, but I find it unlikely that Moses, unlike all of the other prophets, would write about himself in the third person. But I don't want to talk specifically about the Fundamentals. Fundamentalism is a modern reaction to modernism, one that uses modernism methodology and thinking to refuse modernism, which makes the whole think sketchy. Somewhere along the line in the past week I realized that the Fundamentals are merely axioms, much like Euclid declared axioms that became the foundation for geometry. Living in the modern age as we do, the scientific mindset is pervasive and even effects our ideas about theology.

What I am thinking about is this idea that modern theological constructs are axiomatic by nature, and if this is an appropriate approach to God. Is it even possible to approach God outisde of the post modern mentality for those of use who have grown up in that mentality?

Is mysticism antithetical to the post-modern mentality? I've tried to explore mysticism through the occult and Christian mysticism but it hasn't led to any insights. It's possible that the mystic way just isn't my way and it doesn't depend on when I'm alive. There may be other avenues that I haven't even though of yet. I try to follow some of the prayer cycles used in the early celtic Church but I simply forget them and forget to look them up. It takes practice.

On the other hand, I may find that I just need to throw myself into this mentality, solidify my own axioms, accept them, and continue on my faith journey. This has been a foundation of my practial religious life anyway, so I might as well run with them. I'm quite comfortable with the idea of an axiomatic personal religion.

Axiom 1: God is Mystery
Axiom 2: God is Good

Other axioms may come out the more I explore this.  ¶ 8:27 AM 0 comments

  A bit more Yesterday I wrote about the confrontational choice I felt. The panel on "The Question of God" also discussed this confrontational choice, and the show explained how Freud and Lewis handled that choice. One of the materialists on the panel seemed dismissive of belief because it requires a "leap of emotions." It was pointed out that it is wrong to set up intellect and emotion as opposites. I agree.

If create an opposition between intellect and emotion, then we could fall into a parallel opposition of materialism and spiritualism. Naturally we would draw intellectualism and materialism together against emotion and spiritualism. This denies the spiritual to have intellectual properties. The generative topic of Cutting Edge Theology is religion found through the head more than the heart. Naturally I deny any suggestion that there is no intellectual background to religious belief.

The point was pushed further by a demand that the existence of God (or some other 'Other') be proven. This is another false argument. God cannot be proven or disproven by science and logic and this is not a weakness of belief. Belief, as Winifred Gallagher explained, is not an 'on/off' thing. It's a scale. Some days belief and faith are stronger than others. Again, I don't see this as a weakness.

Freud called religion an illusion. Freud worked to interpret dreams, which one interviewee described as a very Jewish idea, as Judaism is an interpreted religion. I think there is some bias in the program because it drew a picture of Freud saying that he would save the masses from religion and replace God the Creator with God the Reason. It almost sounded like Freud had a God complex himself.

Freud's confrontational choice came at the death of his father, and he turned away from the religion of his father and looked into his own dreams. He came up with some fanciful ideas.

Lewis faced his choice through poetry and found that the poems he loved the most were religious or written by religious poets. He felt that he was supposed to enjoy the athiests and their works but they just didn't speak to him. Lewis became a theist before he became a Christian. The realization the God was God and Lewis was not God affected him deeply. He had to recover from this shock before he could move on.
  ¶ 11:20 AM 0 comments

  The Question of God I recorded a broad cast of "The Question of God" off of OPB last night and started watching it today. It examines the world views of Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis, both of whom I've tried to read and had little success. The special is focused on the idea that our individual understanding of the meaning of life comes down to one fundamental question: Does God exist?

This is a basic question. It's probably not the first question a seeker asks because it's too big to handle without preparation. Freud and Lewis are the most influential proponents of secularism and spiritualism in the western world according to Dr. Armand Nicoli, a professor at Harvard and who teaches a class that is the basis of this discussion.

Freud was heavily influenced by materialists in school, although he did take a course on religion from Franz Bortano (this is probably misspelled, as the special doesn't print the proper name and there are three distinct pronunciations given. I only have a brief biographical sketch of Freud and it does not mention this teacher). The quote from Bortano in this special states that philosophy draws us away from God, but a deeper examination of philosophy takes us back to God. The special then quotes Freud asserting that there is no knowledge that is not derived from scientific observation and that there is no knowledge derived from revelation, intuition, or inspiration. Freud apparently realized that logic and science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. He then felt that he was faced with a choice to follow the material world view or the spiritual world view. He chose the material world view.

What amazes me is that the realization that science can't prove or disprove the existence of God leads to this "choice" that must cement us for the rest of our lives. (Perhaps I'm exaggerating that bit.) I did have a "choice" when I made that realization, but I saw it as a choice of 'do I believe that God exists' or 'I do not believe that God exists.' I chose to believe in God. I couldn't imagine a Creation without a Creator. It was a building block of my personal faith.

It seems to me that other people come to this realization and also have some sort of "confrontational choice" that affects them for the rest of their lives. For some it is probably a question of "Do I believe in Science or Religion?" This is the same question Freud found. Since my confrontational question was different it may explain why I have a pretty fair reconciliation between the Material and Spiritual world views, mainly because I don't think they are truly in conflict, and thus there is no need for reconciliation.

Freud went on to get married and expressly forbid his wife to practice any ritual or continue in any spiritual practices. I grin to myself when I say it sounds like Freud followed Materialism with religious fervor. Perhaps we are at a point when Materialism has drawn us away from God but we've started to study the material world with such detail that we're finding God was there all along.  ¶ 5:05 PM 0 comments

  Reader Response of Abortion post In response to some feedback:

>>>
Hi Josh. I think your statement "if there was no premarital sex then most abortions would not be needed" is a perhaps a bit sweeping. You seem to be making
the assumption that couples who are married will automatically choose to go through with an unplanned pregnancy?

I agree with what you say about aiming for a society where each child is wanted though. That means available, effective contraception for everyone who needs
it. Just my twopennorth.
>>>


First, thanks for writing. I appreciate knowing that people are reading this blog.

Second, my statement is pretty sweeping, and I haven't looked at any statistics to find out what pregnancy situations end in abortion. I am guessing that most abortions are result of pre-marital (or perhaps "out of wedlock" would be better) sex. I don't want to presume that married couples would go through with an unplanned pregnancy. All I can say is that from our experience (my wife and I) is that had my wife gotten pregnant in the past three years since we were married we would run with it. We want to have children and over the past three years we have been unable to afford a child. It would have been very difficult financially for us to have children, but we would have done it.

Contraception for all is, in my opinion, not the best solution. Why would even married couples choose not to have a child or another child? The expence? The difficulty of raising children? I think that there are bigger issues to tackle.

Thanks again  ¶ 8:25 AM 2 comments

  Homosexuality I was writing about the difference between satirical sites and serious sites when I dragged out a link to Jim Kress' "christian" site. I put "christian" in quotes because I am not being a Christian about this. Reading a site like Jim Kress' simply pisses me off. It's hard to reconcile the anger I feel with the love of Christ and feeling the Holy Spirit.

I had to check Kress' site to see if was still up and that the link was valid. Then I made the mistake of looking at his Religion pages and I think that there are two sentences on the entire page that I can agree with. When he spouts off against homosexuality I get really pissed. The argument against homosexuals seems to be the following argument:

1. _______ is a sin.
2. People who are __________ are sinners
3. Sinners should not be allowed in church (or, in a milder form, to take communion)
4. Therefore, _____ people should not be allowed in church (or take communion)

Of course this is valid in that one thing follows from another. It doesn't really work as an argument. Insert "Lefthandedness," "lefthanded", and "lefthanded" in the three blanks and it fails immediately. Today nobody would think that God wants us to deny lefthanded people from participating in church. Granted, the Church used to think that, and so did society. Lefthandedness was considered a sign of the devil and lefthanded children were taught to write with their right hands. Thankfully this no longer happens.

This counter argument relies on the fact that homosexuality is natural. Sexuality is a born trait. Most people are born heterosexual, some homosexual, just like most people are born right handed and some left handed. This fact is something that those who oppose the rights of homosexuals reject. They believe that homosexuality is a choice. In that case, fill in "dyeing your hair" or "wearing earrings" in the argument and see how you feel.

It still doesn't work. The worst part of the argument is the third item. Sinners should not be banned from participation. Unrepentant sinners should not be banned. Jesus did not teach to the riteous, as He said: A doctor tends the sick, not the healthy. I think that third line also points to an inconsistency in belief: We are all sinners, sinners should be banned from church, but I should participate while they should not be allowed to participate. Does this make sense?

Perhaps I am biased towards my own beliefs too much. Many of us are. It happens naturally. I don't think I have the energy to be a Progressive Firebrand like Bishop Spong. I don't think I'm called to become a soldier of challenging rhetoric to bring people to God. I am only one small voice here.  ¶ 8:39 AM 0 comments

  Abortion I just finished reading Mike Moscoe's short story "The Strange Redemption of Sister Mary Ann." The story dealt with a nun who is dying of cancer. She was once married and used artificial fertilization to have eight fertilized eggs implanted in her uterus. Four of them came to term, four didn't. In her last days she hears the voices of her four unborn children. The story is thought provoking and draws into the argument surrounding abortion.

I can't say what Moscoe's belief is here. I think the point he tried to make is this: If human beings get a soul at conception, and up to one half of pregnancies are lost through miscarriage naturally, then all of those lost children go straight to heaven.

The implications are far reaching. Original Sin goes out the window. If unbaptized souls go to Hell, then these souls who are lost due to natural or unnatural abortion are suffering eternity because of a failure of biology. Who set up the laws of biology? God. Would God send unbaptized souls to Hell? Sinners, maybe. The unborn? Can we accept a god who does this? My God would not do this. God is Love. God is not a celestial hall monitor.

Of course I don't know when a soul inhabits a human being, but I believe human beings have a soul. This is why I do think that abortion is a tragedy. A human soul doesn't get the chance to try this world. If we allow for reincarnation then there is hope for these souls.

I think abortion takes a soul away. I don't think I can support reincarnation. I have no problem abandoning original sin (in fact I have already, this is just another supporting argument in favor of my position). I don't believe that we should outlaw abortion in any way. Making it illegal makes more criminals, it does not make a better society or a more just society or a more moral society. All it does is increase our need for prisons. There has to be a better way to stop arbortions.

As Christians we need to love our neighbors. That is the second part of what Jesus calls us to do. Forget anything that Peter, Paul, or any Pope says. Jesus told us to love one another. The only way to trump a command from Jesus is for God to come out and say it. Why do we need abortion? What is it in our society that makes abortion necessary?

We can't blame it all on premarital or unprotected sex. Married women get abortions and condoms can fail 1 out of 1000 times, leaving a pregnancy up to chance the same way unprotected sex leaves pregnancy up to chance. Granted if there was no premarital sex then most abortions would not be needed, and if every child was a wanted child then we'd have even fewer abortions. It will take a society where each child is wanted and can be taken care of by loving parents to stop abortion, and that would be a better, more just, and more moral society.  ¶ 1:11 PM 1 comments

  Upon this rock? I just started to read Phillip Newells "Listening for the Heartbeat of God". He describes the Celtic tradition that the apostle John leaning against Jesus' chest during the last supper and listened to Jesus' heart. I guess symbolically meaning that he listened for the Truth of Jesus' teachings. The Roman church insisted that their authority was based on Peter and the succession of Bishops that was true, because Jesus said "upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church."

It's the phrase "Upon this rock" that caught me. I've heard it several thousand times in my life. Roman Catholics believe that the Grace of God comes only through the Bishop of Rome and then through his agents. I know from reading Elaine Pagel's "The Gnostic Gospels" that in the years following Jesus' death there was fighting among early Christian communities as to who had the "one true faith" and who was a heretic.

The four gospels of the Bible are four interpretation of events that happened around 2000 years ago, give or take a few decades. I always had a general understanding that Jesus' teachings included the idea that we don't need any organization to tell us what to believe, and yet most sects and denominations rely on that very principle: The organization tells you what to beleive. Some denominations are less intrusive than others in this respect, but they all have "rules of admission" into the faith.

Did Jesus teach against Papal Authority? Perhaps. He did say "No one can serve two masters." (Matthew 6:24) This could have been a commentary on how to treat slaves or how to handle money. Jesus could have been saying that it is important to keep or priorities straight and we may apply that lesson to all walks of life. If this is so, then we cannot serve the Pope and serve God. We can't even serve Jesus and serve God unless we believe that Jesus is God. That's a topic I leave up for debate.

So what is the Rock? Was it not Peter himself but Peter's moment of faith when he said "You are the messiah"? Was Jesus refering to Peter or to the act? Jesus builds on the moment when, like Peter, you say 'yes' to God. Peter screwed up a lot, but at just one moment he didn't even hesitate, didn't think about it. He said 'yes.' That's the Rock I will try to keep with me each day. That Rock that says 'Yes!' to God in joyful praise.  ¶ 3:35 PM 0 comments