Fear

I've heard many sermons, and read many Christian writings, about fear.  There are lots of good quotes about fear.  And I've been thinking a lot about fear.

Why all the focus on fear?  Well, fear is a dangerous thing.  A very dangerous thing.  Much of the bad that goes on in the world is rooted in fear.

I think way too much of my life has been driven by fear.  And I think it's done a lot of damage to me. 

I've been thinking about this - and it definitely rings true.  Much of the impact has been in stopping me from doing things - often it stopped me from living.  Probably the best example is with dating.  I did very little dating, but it wasn't because I didn't want to.  It was because I was always afraid.  The very little dating I did do was almost always with women who were socially aggressive - they almost always made it very clear that I should ask them out (or, more often, they just flat out asked me out first).  Off the top of my head, I can only think of one woman that I dated - sort of - who didn't - and that was only sort of dating (a couple movies - a couple dinners - but it almost seemed more like friends hanging out)

Fear is, I think, the root of most if not all anger.  I think most of the fights (by which I mean angry verbal exchanges) that I've had with Kara, at least those I've participated in (we both occasionally actually somehow don't let the other bait us - and one of will be fighting and the other not! :) -- but that doesn't happen often enough) -- most of those angry words from me have been rooted in fear.  Most often, fear that I might lose her.  I wonder what the root of her anger has been?   

Perhaps more damaging to me, though, was the impact of fear on life actions - rather than on arguments with my wife or on stopping actions.  Specifically, I've been thinking a lot about my career decisions.  I spent a lot of time in jobs that seemed to have the sole purpose of toughening me up.  But, the problem with that, is that I'm not a tough guy.  I don't think I was ever supposed to be a tough guy.  Whenever I put on the tough guy suit I've never felt comfortable - and often I've actually felt pretty horrible.

But growing up I remember the worst feeling I had - and I had it a lot - was feeling weak.  I hated feeling weak.  And so I've spent most of my life trying to feel strong.  But I think I've done it all the wrong ways.  I've done it by trying to be something I'm not.  One doesn't have to be a tough guy with a tough guy job to feel strong.  In fact, since those jobs never really fit me well, they tended to just make me feel all that more weaker - but I could still hide behind the role and kind of convince myself that I was strong.

And, although I've abandoned the tough-guy jobs, I really haven't stopped seeking strength.  I was a Union shop steward for awhile - in part because I wanted to help people (which I think is more in line with the real me) - but also in part because it's a strong guy role.  You get to beat up on management (figuratively of course).  That did have the advantage of being at least a little in line with the real me - since I was helping people (compared to the Army, for example, where while you are protecting the nation, that's a pretty theoretical fact - whereas in the day to day reality the job is about killing people - or in my case helping others kill people -- a good job for some types of people, maybe, but probably not me being true to myself).

I've wondered a lot about why I had that overwhelming desire to be baptized.  I note it was definitely during a period when I was feeling very weak and fearful.  And I now thinking on all this, I suspect that I wanted to be baptized because I wanted to feel strong.  I hoped it would make me feel less weak.  And it did.  But, it wasn't an absolute.  It didn't take away the struggle.  I still feel far to weak.  I'm hoping that if I keep reading the Bible and keep listening to religious audio books and keep going to church and keep hanging out with godly people - I'm hoping that I'll find some of God's strength - and I'm hoping that I'll find this to be the kind of strength that does fit me well.

Ok - so that was quick thoughts on this - I'll have to work on it some more later. 

  
     

Children of God

I've seen many references to children of God - but haven't been noting them.  But then a reference I just read in my mind seemed possibly tied to early OT things - and it got me wondering.  But not enough time just now to discuss - plus I want to go through again and see what those other references were. 

But here's what I saw this morning:

John 11:51-52

Caiphais prophesied that "...Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one." 

In my mind this morning - and maybe it's just the early hour - but I'm seeing "scattered children of God" connected to Cain being made to wander.  I also think about how some scientists think maybe humans cross bred with Neanderthals - which could arguably be a mistake in the science from when humans actually cross bred with a superior being such as the Nephelim (or, are the Nephelim the children of that cross breeding??) --   

Also interesting is that fact that periodically throughout history there have been extraordinary men who seemed just beyond human in their thinking and influence.  I'm thinking of DaVinci - but also Einstein

---


Robert Browning
Grow old along with me! The best is yet to be, The last of life, for which the first was made; Our times are in his hand who saith, "A whole I planned, Youth shows but half; trust God: See all, nor be afraid!

Living in the Age of Vampires

I believe we are moving into a new Romantic Age.  People are focusing more and more on feelings and less on logic and rationality.  People are becoming more and more interested in things beyond work - money is less and less important.  People are demanding something more comfortable than the "cold hard facts" -- why did anyone ever want to sit upon something cold and hard to begin with?  And even so-called traditional church is becoming less attractive to people.  But this does not mean the end of religion.  In fact, I suspect the Age of Reason was a much bigger threat to religion.  But churches have spent so much time and effort trying to make religion fit into the straight jacket of reason that there is going to be quite a lot of adjusting to do.  And we aren't going to throw out logic and reason - we are just going to push it back from it's recent attempts to take over all aspects of our lives.  Since we're not throwing logic and reason out, churches will have to find ways to speak to our romantic inclinations while not abandoning logic and reason.

I believe a good example of this might be the blossoming interest in vampires.  And more importantly, how vampires are being portrayed.  My first real introduction to vampires in any big sense was the Ann Rice books.  But note how her books are really an in depth exploration of the psychology of what to us would in the Rational Age be simply deemed purely evil creatures.  And in the Rational Age we wouldn't really go all that deep in our analysis of vampires.  They would simply be painted as evil albeit somewhat intelligent animals - really they were more a vehicle for a story about a hero who triumphs over nature.  But then came along the Ann Rice books.  And I've never seen vampires the same way since.

Then, Kara really pushed me into watching the Buffy series.  Given how campy and low budget the show was, it is amazing how popular the show was. I was really put off at first by the low budget campy portrayal of vampires.   But I quickly learned that there were two sets of vampires in the show.  There were the weak nondescript vampires who were simply something for our hero to fight.  But then there were the fleshed out vampires - with personalities and histories - whose stories we were allowed to learn.  So we had both the Age of Reason vampires, and the Romantic Age vampires, all in one show.             

More recently, for example the Twilight take on vampires.  (Kara wanted to go - so we went to the first two movies - I never read the books but I think Kara might have.  So that's the extent of my understanding of Twilight - I'm no expert - but ...).  In Twilight - vampires are not nearly as easy to kill as they are in many earlier portrayals.  They don't, most notably, need to avoid all sun light.  In fact, they (mostly?) avoid sun light to avoid standing out.  They shimmer in the light.  I find the Twilight take on vampires (my superficial understanding of it) to be interesting as it opens up a lot of possibilities - and it really is more believable.  If vampires are evil and not just misunderstood "others" - or for that matter even if they are just misunderstood "others" who are very powerful but only exist in limited numbers - then it doesn't seem likely that sunlight would be deadly to them.  That seems more like a perspective of the Age of Reason - more like a metaphor for knowledge (light) overcoming all ignorance (darkness) - so much so that even a small light beam can instantly kill an otherwise nearly indestructible creature.  (funny that i've now read Exodus 34:29-35 -- where Moses' face become radiant from speaking with God -- not that I think Moses is supposed to be a vampire of course -- but an interesting coincidence ) 

So, what does this all have to do with church?  Well, if they want to be relevant, churches have to introduce church goers to vampires.  Ok - not literally - but I have to say as I'm reading through the Bible I'm finding all kinds of romantic things that churches seem to just ignore or gloss over.

Take the Nephilim for example.  I've mentioned them to a few people - and I think every time I do they just think I'm joking or that I'm focusing on the wrong thing.  But I think those who just dismiss the Nephilim are the ones not focusing on the right thing.  If you want to hook people today - you need to talk about the supernatural - you need to talk about the miraculous - you need to explain why the Nephilim are in there.  And don't explain it by saying God is mysterious - that's a dismissal not an explanation.  Why did Jesus just say "Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are gods"?  If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came - and Scripture cannot be set aside..."  (John 10:34-35)  Who did he call gods?!?!  And more importantly, why are no churches talking about this???  And if they do decide to talk about it, I highly recommend not simply dismissing it all with some rational logical argument that in effect actually throws it out.  It is not only in the OT, but Christ himself is citing it and using it to support his position.  So there must be something to it.

But the big big question, remember the end of my first paragraph! -- the really big question will be how to reconcile the mystical with the rational?  I believe that is the age we are moving into.  I believe we will not simply fall back into a dark age - but rather we are moving forward into an age where logic and rationality are married to magic and mysticism.  

Apropos of this being election day -- I just realized that the difference between conservatives and liberals is often due to a difference in their approach to the romantic.  I've often heard liberals complain about conservatives having an uninformed attachment to the past.  They often complain that conservatives want to live in a yesterday that never was.  Conservatives, however, often complain that liberals have a pie-in-the sky desire for a utopia that will never come.  Both, it seems, are using similar logical arguments to fight against the particular brand of romanticism of the other.  Maybe that's why politics seems so personal these days - it reflects the transition to romanticism - but everyone is holding onto some of their logical approach while embracing just some of romanticism.  Maybe as we progress further on the road to romanticism we'll be able to reconcile the love with the past and the love of the future and thus make politics less viscerally frightening.  (Remember - whenever we see anger - look for the fear - it is always there somewhere).     

   

On lies

I overheard something that has been bouncing around in my head.  A woman was talking to a couple of her friends, and I overheard her say, "I don't care, I'll lie if I have to."  I didn't hear anything leading up to this statement, and I didn't hear the words of her friends' reply.  I could hear the tone of her friends, however, and they sounded agreeable - not like they were correcting her.

To me, this is an example of the evil that we in our society in this time in history are the most likely to encounter.  I'm not saying the woman is evil - not at all - I think everyone has ways in which they are good and everyone has ways in which they are not so good.

And, I don't really think that a lie told in the heat of the moment is the best example of evil.  Evil is scarey.  Lying when caught with your hand in the cookie jar is not all that scarey.  It's more an example of our everyday fallen state.  It's the kind of lie that, if you're given some time to think about things, you are apt to confess.  It's the kind of lie that we're all prone to do, and so we understand that a statement made by someone just caught doing something they shouldn't be doing might well bring about a lie.  Since we expect it and understand it, it isn't all that damaging, and so it isn't all that scarey. 

But, to actually plan to lie, and to proudly announce it to your friends, and for your friends to be supportive of that decision, that is for me the scarey kind of lie.

So, what if there is a good reason to lie?  What if Hitler had been caught instead of killing himself, and what if you were told your testimony was needed to convict him, and he will go free if you don't lie?  Would that be ok?  Actually, I think that would be the absolute worst time to lie.  First, although God can take bad actions and do good things with them, that doesn't justify doing bad things, even if you think the reasons are good.  Second, lying with the intent to bring about pain and suffering to someone is completely different than lying to protect yourself.  Third, note that the reason given for lying is that there isn't enough evidence to convict unless you do.  If that were not the case, then you wouldn't even be thinking about lying.  But, if your testimony is needed to convict, ie if you have a reason to lie, then you are in effect replacing the entire judicial proceeding with your own judgment.

We're told to not judge others, which is a very problematic command in many ways.  But not in this scenario.  Of all the ways of interpreting the command to not judge others, surely putting ourselves in the position of being the final say on another person's guilt or innocence - and using a lie as the means of doing that - that must surely fall smack in the middle of the prohibition against judging others.  [Exodus 20:16, 23:1-7]

But, the woman I heard most surely wasn't going after Hitler.  Hitler did exist, so don't take this the wrong way, but for almost all of us, almost all the time, there are no Hitlers in our lives.  Most likely the woman was afraid that she was going to get in trouble for something and she was saying she would lie if she had to in order to get out of it.

If that is the case, then note how this differs from getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar.  In this case, she isn't caught in the heat of the moment.  She instead she is actually planning on lying in the future.  That to me is not as bad as lying to harm another (that is, for example, lying in order to convict Hitler).  I was going to say it was the second worst kind of lying, but then I thought of other types that are worse - such as lying to promote yourself, or lying as gossip.  Gossip is probably the worse kind of lying that we run into on a daily basis - and this particular woman is a big gossip.  I often hear her changing the facts in her gossip just a little here or there in order to make it more interesting - and by making it more interesting she's making it more damaging to the person being gossiped about.  Hopefully, though, she wasn't proudly announcing to her friends that she was planning on lying in her gossip.            [perhaps a separate entry about gossip?]

Nonetheless, she was actually planning on lying, and she had the support of her friends.  So, why was she planning on lying?  I don't know, but it seems likely she was trying to protect herself.  If so, I have to wonder why it would be worth it. She might get in trouble with the boss about something.  But when you're in that situation you own up and take your thumps.  I've found bosses usually actually respect you more in the long run if you do that.  And, if caught in the lie, you're apt to do more harm to yourself than if you just took your punishment. 

She might well not actually lie when push comes to shove.  I might actually have caught her in the heat of the moment - not of being caught but of anticipating the possibility of being caught.  She might have just figured out that she was about to get into trouble for something and so she was, in her mind, in the scenario of being caught with her hand in the cookie jar.

Ok - that would take her statement into the category of not so scarey lies.  But it still leaves her friends.  They should be advising that she not lie.  Or if they're not brave enough to do that, then they at least should remain silent.  But to actually be making sounds of encouragement?  Now that is perhaps the scariest part of the whole exchange.  That is the seed of the mob - of the witch trials - of the Red Scare - of so much of the great evil we see in the world. 

 

The Ten Commandments

I read Exodus 20 this morning.  The publishers label this chapter "The Ten Commandments."  There are lots of interesting things in this chapter - and I read a few lines into the next - and it seems to continue.  But I don't have time this morning to discuss it much (I posted a couple thoughts into a couple earlier posts where this added to earlier things I had posted).  So I'll just create this post and hope to get back to it someday. 

Parenting Lessons in the Bible

I was talking with someone the other day about how religion does a much better job of teaching us about certain aspects of life than science does.  I later thought about it and wondered if the Bible does much in the way of teaching me how to parent.  I'm a little ways into Exodus at this time - and already there have been a few stories that I think are relevant.  These seem to fall into two categories so far - stories about human nature that are especially relevant to parents, and stories about people failing their kids in some way.

Without going back and researching the Bible to be sure of specifics, here is what I have in mind.

First are two stories about human nature that seem relevant:

The story of the fall of man is basically a story of God telling man not to do something and man doing it anyway.  In fact, as I recall, there really doesn't seem to be any rules given, except to not do this one thing.  Don't eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  So, of course, man goes and does just that.  This story is not predominately about this - but I do think one of the lessons from this is that human nature is such that we often most want to do that which we have been told not to do.  It is, per the story, the oldest of our sins.  And I think this relates to a trap that parents can easily fall into - which is forbidding our kids from doing things that they are not even really doing to begin with.  An example of success in this regard for us, I think, is with cussing - and specifically for when a young child inadvertently says something that is a bad thing to say.  I've seen parents intervene in that situation.  They later explain that although the child didn't really know what they were saying, it was important to make sure the child knew that they were not allowed to say it.  But that just draws focus on the thing, and the child now knows there is power in those words, and so they are all that much more likely to remember them and be able to use them when they want to.  I believe Kara and I have done a pretty good job of avoiding this particular mistake (though we have made plenty of others!)  But, this is also a problem with many books and TV shows for kids.  The shows and books will bring up a problem - such as a kid whining to get candy at a store.  The story has the kid learn that they are not supposed to do that.  OK- but as Clark is watching it - Kara and I are not at all happy since this is as much teaching Clark to do the bad behavior (which he has not really even ever done) as it is teaching him to not do it.  This seems to especially be a problem with "educational" TV and books.  Shows not billed as educational - such as the Backyardigans - do much less of this.  Arguably, as a kid gets older it might make more sense to have them read and watch things that address mistakes they are making - but you definitely want to watch out and not have kids watching anything aimed at even kids just a little older than they are otherwise you're apt to just be teaching them about forbidden fruits as much as teaching them how to avoid the problems.

The story of Cain and Abel is actually the first thing to pop into my head when I started thinking about this topic.  When I first read the story, I had an irreverent thought that God really screwed up by pitting Cain against Abel.  That's probably not the best way to read the story!  :) I still think, however, that the story tells us an important thing about human nature, which is that it can be problematic when those in power point out to subordinates that one of the subordinates is doing an especially good job.  An excellent book that I would highly recommend is Enders Game.  It is about young kids being raised to be military leaders.  In order to test and toughen up an especially promising kid, the teachers point out to all the kids how the promising kid is doing a great job.  He instantly becomes a target for the other kids!  They are merciless with him.  In Enders Game, the leaders did this intentionally - but how often do we do this inadvertently?  In the story of Cain and Abel, God does the same thing by praising Abel's sacrifice and telling Cain his sacrifice isn't all that great.  Only instead of Abel getting toughened up, he gets killed by a jealous Cain.  This is another thing that I've seen parents do (ourselves included).  Some very good parents admitted recently to realizing they were doing this and it was causing big problems for the favored child.  I'm torn on this to a degree, because I believe strongly that we have to treat each child differently, since each child is different.  But I think at the same time we have to be on guard to make sure we're not favoring one child over another - especially if it is so blatant as to be obvious to the children.  I think this is an error that we have been making off and on - for us the tendency is to favor the younger child with regard to conflicts, and to favor the older child in regard to giving them our time and focus.  We've caught ourselves doing this and are still working at not doing it - but that's much easier said than done.  It's quite the balancing act to avoid favoritism while at the same time acknowledging that each child is unique and has unique needs.  I'm not really sure I know how I am supposed to read the Cain and Abel story - if I figure that out maybe that will help me understand better how to apply it to the problem. 

It's late - so I'll have to come back to this later - but the next two stories are:  Lott and his daughters - basically the lesson is that if you raise your children amongst people who are doing bad things, don't be too surprised if your children do similarly bad things.  The other is Joseph who enjoyed a favored status with his father - but this made his brothers jealous and so they seriously thought about killing him but instead sold him into slavery.  This is basically the same as Cain and Abel, only there's alot more to the story, and it ends much better for Joseph and his brothers than it did for Abel and Cain (thanks in large part to Joseph's exercise of grace).                  







I'd love to have any comments or thoughts of anyone who happens to read this.  But realize it is a work in progress - I plan to update this as I find more - and I plan to edit and reorganize as time and my thoughts permit.  

Genesis

So, I finished reading Genesis.  I didn't really stick completely to the one chapter a day - I missed a couple days - especially while on vacation.  Then, about halfway through the story of Joseph I found myself really wanting to see what would happen and so I finished reading the book. I looked things up a lot more at the beginning and kind of fizzled out with that as I went on due to time constraints - but I hope to do more in-depth research later. 

One of the things about Genesis - and maybe about Matthew and Mark so far - is that I find the chapter divisions to be kind of odd sometimes.  Since the chapter divisions are not original - I would like to here note how I think I would instead divide up Genesis - this helps me see the unfolding of the pivotal stories and perhaps will help for the purposes of future study.  Mostly it seems to me that Genesis is a series of stories about particular individuals and their relationship with God (that's probably true of most of the Bible).  While there is certainly a lot of overlap and so not an easy thing to do - I would generally divide it by the stories of each person.

So - here are the stories as I currently see them:

Creation in general (Chapter 1, and the first three verses of Chapter 2)
Adam and Eve (Chapter 2 beginning with verse 4 through Chapter 3)
Cain (Chapter 4 through verse 16)
Between Cain and Noah (Chapter 4, verse 17 through Chapter 5, verse 27)
Noah (Chapter 5, verse 28, through Chapter 9)
Between Noah and Abraham (this one is particularly difficult since the Tower of Babel story is put in here for some reason I don't understand -- but generally I'd say it is Chapter 10 through Chapter 11 -- as I think about what I just wrote below about the story of Abraham being the first that seems like a true to life story - I guess the Tower of Babel story had to be put in no later than here since it definitely has the feel of an introductory kind of story - more to learn from rather than a story that is literally true)
Abraham (Chapter 12 through Chapter 25, verse 11 -- it is with Abraham that the feel is different for me - as if now the Bible is telling stories of real people - Adam, Cain, Noah etc all seem more like composites - like stories that we're supposed to learn from but not necessarily really believe that these specific individuals actually lived -- but with Abraham it seems like the portrayal of an actual individual)
-- It seems to me that really at this point it mostly becomes Jacob's story - although Isaac's story is certainly there it seems more like a bridge between Abraham and Jacob - so...
Jacob (Chapter 25, verse 12 through Chapter 35)
-- I don't really get what Chapter 36 is doing - so I'll leave it out -- it maybe it's own thing or it may relate to Jacob or Joseph and would end or begin those -- 
Joseph (Chapter 37 through Chapter 50) 


Interesting - I found seven central stories!  Providence?? 



(as to Abraham's story -- the story of Lot is mixed in -- but he seems to be a secondary albeit important character -- more there I guess to contrast Abraham.  The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is in here which is for me more part of the Lot story than it's own story -- I would note here since I don't know if I'll ever bother with it elsewhere -- I really don't see the Sodom and Gomorrah story as anti-homosexual at all.  The sexual immorality of Sodom as told in the story is such that men from every part of the city - young and old - came to Lot's house to rape his male (well angels - so male seeming) visitors!  This is nothing like people living in a life long monogamous homosexual relationship.  To say this story shows God's disdain for all homosexuality is a gross misrepresentation of the story.  I don't know at this time what the rest of the Bible says about the subject - but this story is usually one that is cited for anti-gay comments and I just don't see it here at all)  

The use of numbers

There definitely seems to be something to the idea that numbers have special meaning.  At least, dates and numbers are used in ways that we don't use them in our culture.  In fact, there seem to be no dates at all.  Which is especially odd given how important it seems to be to tell us how old someone was when they died, how old they were when they became the father of this or that person, and sometimes even how old they were when a specific thing happened.  In order to know those things, one would need to have a calendar of some sort, and so you would think they could give the dates things happened.

For example, Genesis 7:11 - "In the sixth hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventh day of the second month - on that day..." (the flood began).  Why tie it to Noah's age like that - why not give us a date?  A cynic might say this was done in order to avoid having anyone question the event - to stop people from showing other historical events on that date that show it couldn't be true.  But I'm pretty sure this lack of dates continues into the New Testament - where many of the events would be unquestionable facts.  For example, Christ is a historically documented person.  He had a specific birth date and a specific date of death.  I don't see how anyone would think there was any harm in giving those dates.  But I'm pretty sure the Bible never does.  Why?


As to the use of numbers - Genesis at least - at least so far - seems to be using numbers in ways that we would not.  Not only with regard to ages of people (although that stands out the most) - there are also other numbers - such as the specific dimensions of the Arc, the number of animal pairs (one and seven - which is thus also two and fourteen), number of years warring, etc.  And, the creatures are divided into three groups - clean animals, unclean animals, and birds.  In the New Testament - in Matthew at least - in the lineage of Christ we have 14 generations between various people - divided into three groups.

I should also note that numbers certainly have power outside the Biblical context.  There is for example the number Pi, which apparently ties into many mathematical formulas.  There is a number (or formula?? - I can't remember it's name) that describes many natural forms - such as a nautilus or the branches of a tree.  Science is full of important and powerful numbers.  We like to think this is a modern phenomenon - the unlocking of the power of these numbers, but so often the ancient people surprise us with what they knew.  It seems very likely, even, that they knew things that were since forgotten and modern man has not figured out.  So, there could well be power in many of the numbers of the Bible.

But beyond that, clearly numbers have power culturally in the Bible.  In our culture, it is widely agreed that there is a lot of power in the number three.  It is powerful, when giving lists of things, to list three.  Two or four or more just doesn't pack the same punch.  I get the distinct impression from what I've read so far that understanding the numbers of the Bible would likely increase my understanding of what is being told, and, although I'm not normally a numbers guy, I definitely want to pursue this further.     





A work in progress - as always comments are encouraged during the progress -  

Timeline

I've noticed some very odd things with the timeline -- there are so many it has to be a difference in culture with regard to how to tell a story or a linguistic difference.  I'll probably have to research it to understand it - but for now here are some examples (I should go back and see if I can find more -- and is this just Genesis?  Just Old Testament?  Or throughout?)

The examples for now are:

Genesis 7:12 -- "And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights."

Then, Genesis 7:13 -- "On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark."

Then, Genesis 7:17 -- "For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth and as the waters increased..."


Another example:

Genesis 8:6-9 -- "After forty days Noah opened a window he had made in the ark and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth.  Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground.  But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth; "


In English, when we tell a story like this, we would probably never have a sentence with a goal being sought, then reached.  Then in the next couple sentences that goal is again not yet reached.  But is there something about the way you order the chronology of the Bible, or parts of it, that follow some kind of linguistic rule in the Bible? 



(work in progress -- but comments while in progress are very welcome)

Animals

Genesis 1:30

"'And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground - everything that has the breath of life in it - I give every green plant for food.'  And it was so."

Ok - this is the first time I've ever heard of this.  I even missed it the first couple times that I read through the creation story.  But God not only gave things to man in this section, he also gave to all animals "every green plant for food".  I've seen where people use God saying man was to rule over every plant and animal as an excuse for man ruining the environment.  You don't have to read the Bible to know that man rules over plants and animals in ways that no other creature on earth even comes close.  There is, however, the fact that ruling over does not mean you have license to destroy.  In fact, rulers are supposed to be taking care of that which they rule over.  But then here we also have God gifting green plants to every thing that breaths, which tells me that at least as far as green plants go we definitely need to take care since they weren't given to just us, but to all living creatures.

Also - I wonder if this indicates that there were no flesh eating animals at this time?  Or is that too much reading into it?   


Genesis 3

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made.  He said to the woman..."

I've heard it said that the serpent was Satan - but it doesn't look like that here.  The serpent clearly seems to be an animal - not a supernatural being.   Especially since God then curses it by saying "Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals, you will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.  And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head and you will strike his heel."  (and the serpent is cursed first, I note)  This sounds much more like a snake than like Satan. 



Genesis 7:2-3 -- God has Noah save the animals -- but very odd -- I note that he has Noah save 7 pairs of every clean animal, 7 pairs of every bird, and 1 pair of every unclean animal.  I can get my mind around the clean versus unclean animals - the clean are to be eaten and also sacrificed to God.  But why 7 of each bird?  I also can't quite reconcile the 7 pairs of this section with the 1 pair in the proceeding Genesis 6:19-20.
(I've since seen at least one other Bible with a slightly different translation - where my Bible has it as one pair at one place, and 7 pairs in another, the other translation has it as 7 pairs - but then the animals board the arc as couples - so no real conflict there)

Genesis 9:8-17
Although the publishers of the book give this chapter a title of "God's covenant with Noah" - remember chapter titles come from the publisher - they are not in the original - it should more accurately include God's covenant with every living creature.  Repeatedly from line 8 through line 17 God again and again says he has a covenant with not only Noah and his descendants, but also with all living creatures.

So - God first gifts green plants to all living creatures, then after the flood he has a covenant with all living creatures.  Clearly he isn't only interacting with us - he seems to be interacting with all living creatures - and in ways that I've never heard anyone discuss before (especially as to entering into a covenant with them - which is another way of saying God has self imposed limits to his options with regard to how he will interact with animals - not just with humans)

  
---

I haven't seen much on this subject - but in this morning's reading of Exodus 20:8-11 I note that in the verse about not working on the Sabbath it lists everyone who should not work - to include "neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns."   Interesting that it includes animals!  I never knew that they get a day of rest - (and a day to remember the Sabbath?)


---

Again, yesterday morning, Exodus 23:12, "Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and donkey may rest, and so that the slave born in your household and the foreigner living among you may be refreshed."  So this is reinforcing Exodus 20:8-11.

But we also have something new - Exodus 23:11 - "but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused.  Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what is left.  Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove."  Nice support for the poor, but notice also for the wild animals.  At first I was thinking the wild animals might be helping with the process of the fields fallowing - in other words that God was saying let them come in and eat the plants and they'll help fertilize the fields.  But then I realized this could just as easily be done with farm animals - so it must be something more.  When coupled with creating the wild animals in the creation stories, then saving the wild animals in the Noah story, I think this might be another bit of environmentalism - showing God's respect for his creation - so don't try to chase the wild animals off - let them eat what they may. 


(work in progress - but please feel free to comment at anytime)

Judas

Matthew 13:55 (is this the same Judas???)

(work in progress - but comments welcome anytime)

Born with Sin?

I've heard it said that we are born sinners - full of sin.  But this so contradicts my experience with my children. One of the most spiritual experiences of my life has been looking into the eyes of my newborn children.  I really can't explain it - but it felt like their eyes were truly windows into the infinite - as if I was looking in the eyes of some creature fresh from heaven - as if I could still see the reflection of God therein.  I spent many many hours just holding and looking at Clark- getting lost in his eyes (I didn't have as much luxury of time with Juno - but I also did some staring into the infinite of her newborn eyes too).

I did some internet research on this in the past - but was relying on others finding passages for and against the notion that children are born sinners - as opposed to being born destined to become sinners.  Now, I want to record here any passages I see that weigh in on this --    

The first is: 

 Genesis 8:21
"The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: 'Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood.  And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done."

I note that God says every inclination of the human heart is evil - from childhood.  I think this means after childhood - but I have to admit it ambiguous as to whether this could include childhood.  But it clearly does not say from birth.  I would think that if God wanted to say we are sinners from birth he would have said that - as it would be a more powerful statement.  But instead it is from childhood. 


(work in progress - but comments welcome anytime)

The Nephilim - and other supernatural beings among us

(I'm not sure that beings in dreams count as being among us - but for now I'm including them.  I'm not including them when only in prophecies, or in parables, etc)

Angels - Old Testament


Angels - New Testament (I note that an angel was significantly involved at the beginning of Matthew, and at the end)
  
    Unspecified:  Matthew 1:20 - But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

    Unspecified: Matthew 2:13 - When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream.  "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt.  Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him."

   Unspecified: Matthew 2:19 - After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead."  (Question - how long later was this?  How old was Christ by this time?  Insight - I notice Christ thus parallels the Jews in a backwards kind of way way - escaping to Egypt - then going to Israel.)  

   Unspecified/Plural:  Matthew 4:11 - Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.  (this was after the devil tested Jesus in the wilderness)

   Unspecified: Matthew 28:2-3 - There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down         from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.  His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.

   Unspecified/Plural: Mark 1:13 - and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan.  He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.




Demons:


Sorceress -- Exodus 22:18


Genesis 6:1-7

Hebrews 13:2



(work in progress - but comments welcome any time)

How many Gods?

Genesis 1:26

I've begun reading the Bible.  I'm trying to read a chapter of the Old Testament and a chapter of the New Testament each day.  This morning I'm up to Genesis 6, and Matthew 6.

Genesis 6 kind of blew me out of the water a little with this:  "...the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.  ...The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them.  They were the heroes of old, men of renown."

Wow -- that seems so like ancient Greek mythology - where the gods and demigods mate with humans.  Would not the "sons of God" be gods themselves - albeit perhaps lesser than God?  And their half human offspring were heroes and men of renown - which seems an awful lot like the Greek myths also.  And one does get the sense sometimes that there are people among us, but who mostly keep out of the spotlight, who are radically powerful - in intellect, in creativity, in influence, etc.  There are people who are so far above the rest of us that we just can't fathom them (Aristotle for example).  Could these people somehow be the Nephilim?  Or their offspring?  Perhaps very distant and watered down offspring - hence the seeming lack of Aristotles and Platos of today?  (Note:  I'm never quite sure if the Nephilim is synonymous with the sons of God, or is that the term for the half human offspring???)  

When I couple this stuff about sons of God with the plural "our" of Genesis 1:26 - "Then God said, 'Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness...'", I can't help but get the sense that there is more than one God (there are other passages that seem to point this way also that I don't have at my fingertips - for example I believe there are passages about not worshiping other gods that are phrased in such a way as to indicate that there are other gods that could be worshiped but instead we're supposed to only worship the head honcho - the big guy - the number one God.)

Time is tight - so that's as far as I can go with this for now.  I definitely want to look further into the Nephilim.  

Genesis 3:22

"And the Lord God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.'"     

---

As to Genesis 1:26,  I've been thinking about this off and on since I read this.  I've entertained different ideas, and also found commentary on the internet about it.  I haven't seen anyone else say this, but I have to say I find it significant that the first indication of a plural God comes with the passage about making man and woman in God's image.  Why wasn't the "us" used in the earlier creation verses?  Why wait until here?   I know there are those who say this is about the Trinity - but again why bring it up at this verse?  If it's about the Trinity - why doesn't the OT always use "us"?  And in any case, what would this plural have meant to people for all those years between when it was written and the time of Christ?  Others have said it's just a royal "we" - so to speak.  I'm not sure, but I believe the royal "we" comes from Kings claiming to be acting on God's behalf - the other part of the "us" with Kings is God.  So what would the other part of the royal we be with regard to God?  And again, why introduce us to the "royal we" at this particular point?  Since it is kind of jarring, this deviation from the singular God in the earlier part of the creation story, and the "us" of Genesis 1:26, I would think it significant.  And why have it at this exactly point in the story?

I've entertained a number of ideas, none of which I've completely ruled out.  The Trinity idea and the royal we ideas both have something to them.  But they don't fully satisfy.  Other ideas I've had are that there were (and perhaps still are) many Gods, but that the God of the Bible is the head honcho - either he fought and perhaps is still fighting his way to that level - or maybe is just always was that he was head honcho who tolerates the lesser gods, at least so long as they don't get too carried away.  But in any case, there are other gods, and God works with them.  Another idea is that there are powerful beings, below God, but working with him.  These would likely be the angels of the Bible - perhaps the demigods of ancient Greece.  If these are the sons of God, then they are likely also in God's image.  And maybe they partook of the making of man - so man was made in the image of God and of the angels??  I've had other sketchier thoughts - but have not been fully satisfied with any of them.  For one thing, none of these ideas addresses why the concept was introduced at this point, nor do they address the fact that it isn't really brought up that much afterward either.

My current thought - and by far the most satisfying to both my head and heart so far - is that the introduction of the "us" God is at this point in the story for a very good reason.  And, as with all parts of the Bible, especially those parts that don't make sense at first and are hard to understand, it is there to teach us something important.  My current thought is that it is showing us, not a God with three aspects (not the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), but rather a God with two aspects (Male and Female).  It's very easy to anthropomorphize God, seeing him as some kind of very large, oldish man - with a long flowing beard - a cudgel-like staff in his raised fist.  If one then tries to picture a multiple aspect God - however - one gets confused very quickly (by one I mean me).  The problem of picturing this "us" God is, for me, true of both the Trinity and the Male/Female dichotomy.  As for the Male/Female -- Would a Male/Female God be a hermaphrodite?  Or would we have two people-ish Gods standing there?  One the big, kind of scary, oldish man with a wise gentle old woman standing next to him?  While I don't really think either of these is quite right - I would lean towards the second.  If for no other reason than, if I may reverse engineer the story a little, that is much more in keeping with the image of the humans that God made. 

---

Ok - so in this morning's reading, something jumped out at me which adds to this post.  In Exodus 20:3 - the first of the ten commandments:  "You shall have no other gods before me." First, I note that it says to not have other gods before God.  This seems to read as if there are other gods - but God comes first.  If there were not other gods to worry about, a much simpler and straightforward way of saying it would have been for God to say "I am the only god - do not worship any other as they are false gods."  The rest of Exodus 20 seems fairly straightforward and clear - some ambiguity as is unavoidable with language - but not a chapter that is all that hard to understand.  The footnote does say that an alternate translation is "besides" God.  With "besides" it would be less so - but even then it still reads as if there were other gods.  When I read this in light of the Genesis "us" - it seems as if there are other gods - but they must come second to God.  But, in Exodus 20:23 - we have "Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold."  Here it seems more like a command to not worship idols - to not worship things humans have made themselves.  So - at first read - I'm not completely sure - but it is something to keep in mind and study further.  ( I really want to study the different names of God in the original and see if that clears things up - or of course it might just make things more confused!)




(work in progress - but comments welcome at any time)

On Being Baptized

A couple weeks ago, the pastor asked if I wanted to say a few words at the baptism as to why I wanted to be baptized. I started working on this at that time, but I found that summing it up in a few words would be impossible, especially since I’m still trying to work it out in my head. I do know that I’d been thinking about baptism occasionally ever since I decided I was a Christian (a title gifted to me about eight years ago by a very thoughtful pastor who said “Christian” means I’m seeking a relationship to God and that – for me – the best way to seek that relationship is through Jesus Christ. That was the first time someone defined “Christian” in a such a way that I could accept it for myself.) The following is what I’ve got so far on the subject:



---


Why be baptized?

Quite frankly, I’m not sure I know.

One of the things I’ve learned about myself, is that I often will come to a decision based on my intuition or based on my heart – and then I’ll spend a lot of time in my head trying to rationalize the decision to myself.

I’m catching myself doing that now with my decision to be baptized.

About eight years ago I became a Christian. When I say I became a Christian, I mean I decided Jesus Christ was the best way for me personally to seek a relationship with God. I don’t think that is necessarily the best path for everyone. But if I understand at least three very intelligent and thoughtful pastors that have been in my life – I don’t have to think that Christ is the best path for everyone else in order for me to be a Christian.

After making the decision that I was a Christian, I’ve occasionally given thought to the idea of being baptized.

But I never really felt myself moved to do it, and no one was pushing me to do it, and I didn’t really understand it.

But then, recently, I found myself in a personal crisis. I had spent the three years after my Mom’s passing feeling very distant from God – and from most everyone else for that matter. I had turned inward and was focusing only on myself – with only some outward focusing on my kids. Nothing else mattered. I was in pain much of the time. I felt like I was isolated, persecuted, rejected. I felt very alone.

I kept expecting things to get better – but they were only getting worse. I finally sought help, which made things even worse in the short run, but eventually better. As I was coming out of the dark place that I had crashed into, I kept finding myself feeling I needed to be baptized. I really don’t know why. My head hasn’t yet made sense of it.

My heart wants it, but I can’t explain why. I don’t know why.

I do know that I don’t want to feel alone and rejected anymore. I know that I want to be part of something bigger than myself. I know that I want to be moving forward instead of looking back. I know that I want to be the best father I can be to my children. I know I want to be the best husband I can be to my wife.

I don’t know why – I really don’t understand it - but my heart tells me that being baptized is now needed if I want to proceed much further on my journey toward God.


---


I believe it was one of the pastors who asked if we wanted to also have the kids baptized at the same time. I thought, if it was something I needed, maybe the kids needed it too. I’m still not sure where I am on the issue of infant baptism versus adult baptism – but I decided for me I’d rather err on the side of caution. Kara and I discussed it, and we decided to have the kids baptized.

Not everyone gets to be baptized with their children – and it made it all that much more a special occasion for me. Both kids did great, and someone (I still don’t know who he is) gave me a great gift afterwards.

I was baptized first, before the kids, in part so that they would see me doing it and so not be upset by it when it was their turn. While I was being baptized, all my focus was on the pastor and what he was saying and doing, so I didn’t see what the kids were doing. Afterward, however, some man came up to me and said he was especially moved by watching Clark watch me be baptized.

I realized then just how much a factor that was in why I was wanting to be baptized in the first place. I desperately want to be a good father to my kids, I want my kids to be good people, and I know that the best way to teach my kids anything is to be a good example for them. I’m no longer living this life for myself.

It’s a heavy burden living your life for others – and I don’t think I can go it alone. I need the support that I had always felt was there from the older folk in my family. But they can’t stick around forever to help me. I need something much bigger. And so I’m intentionally and consciously pushing myself further on my journey toward God.

My life hasn’t changed radically in the week and a half since I was baptized. I didn’t feel all my burdens fall away. But I have felt a little calmer, a little steadier. I feel like I’m getting my feet back under me. I feel like I’m moving toward something instead of just treading water.