When my wife and I got together, we came from two different Christian backgrounds. She, a practicing Roman Catholic, and me, a Charismatic Protestant (a.k.a. "Non-Denominational"). Over the years, and many breakfast conversations, the differences have become more and more apparent. Now I grew up Catholic, so I knew where she was coming from. She, on the other hand, had minimal Charismatic experience, especially of the Protestant variety. Since the Charismatic movement had much development in the Catholic church though, she wasn't completely lost.
A notable difference between Catholic and Charismatic churches is their view of community and growth. If you look around, you will notice that there are Catholic churches around, but none too close to each other. There are usually only one or two in a specific geographic area. Charismatic churches, on the other hand, can be found practically across the street from each other. Again, the difference is based on their view of community and growth.
When a Catholic church has become too large for its current location to support, they will either move to a location with more property, or more likely, the diocese will start another Catholic church in a nearby, but different, neighborhood. The reason for this is that each Catholic church is designed to meet the needs of that particular community. If and when that church reaches a point where it is unable to effectively meet those needs, another church is required - usually close enough to assist with those needs, but far enough away to reach a separate community as well.
Charismatic churches, on the other hand, tend to be more growth focused. They go from one program to the next, always looking for what brings in the most people. And to assist with this, "successful" Charismatic churches hold seminars and publish books on what they have done to reach such phenomenal growth. So, they are always trying the "newest thing", and usually, at the expense of reaching the needs of the community in which they are located.
Understand, the reason for the difference is that charismatics, by definition, are "What's in it for me?" people. The word "charismatic" comes from the word "charis", meaning "gifts". Unlike their neighbors, the Pentecostals, whose focus tends to be the Holy Spirit (see "Pentecost" in the beginning of the book of Acts in the bible), Charismatics focus on the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In other words, what can they get from the Holy Spirit.
Through the years, charismatics have danced with different "movements": Word & Faith, Prosperity, Healing, etc. All of which have been focused on getting FROM God. Along with this hunger for what they can get, comes the nickname "Cruise-a-matics"; as they jump from church to church, seminar to seminar, event to event, always looking for where the Spirit is "moving". They stand in long lines at the altar with hopes that the minister with the "gift" can bestow it on them by laying their hands upon them.
Before you get upset with me, understand that I've been in the Charismatic movement since the early 1990s. I know of what I speak.
Because of this, Charismatic churches struggle with attendance, as they find people come in the front and leave out the side; going to where the worship is better, or the pastor is more gifted, or they "preach the word". Also, the congregations are made up of people from all over; many driving many miles to attend a particular church. This results in a disconnect between the church and the local community, as the attendees have very little to connect them once the service ends.
If you don't believe me, take a look at the church bulletins of your local Catholic and Charismatic churches. The Catholic one tends to be pages long, with staples holding it together, filled with community needs, reflections, names of the sick to pray for, births, weddings, funerals, and social opportunities. The Charismatic one tends to be one sheet of paper, folded a few times, with one whole section to take notes during the sermon.
What's the solution? The only thing that comes to mind is for people to stop looking at what they can get FROM God. A way to do that is to not spend so much time thanking God for what He has given, but instead thanking God for WHO He is.
God loves us without condition. I'm sure that's the kind of love He would like in return.
© Emittravel 2015
Showing posts with label Catholic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catholic. Show all posts
Sunday, November 8, 2015
Sunday, June 7, 2015
NO REL PREF
I recently had a visit to a local hospital for some "lab work". That's a nice way to say that I had to go and get some blood drawn. I'm an absolute freak when it comes to needles. When I was a kid (pre-teen, early teen), I needed to have some surgeries, and one of the things they would do is give two shots in either the hip or upper thigh as part of the anesthesia. It would take FIVE nurses to hold me down for the shots. As an adult I say that only two were necessary (WINK!!) I even have trouble watching one of my all-time favorite TV shows: M*A*S*H. Whenever they show a needle I have to turn my head. Pretty phobic!
While at the lab, the staff had to update some of my records in their system, and one of the questions I was asked was what was my religion.
When I joined the Navy at seventeen years old, one of the many questions asked, in the multitude of paperwork, was the same thing: what was my religion. I grew up Roman Catholic, so that is what I put down. Later, when I turned eighteen, I announced to my parents that I was no longer considering myself a Catholic and was no longer going to church. They didn't like it too much, but since I was eighteen, they accepted my decision. That meant that I wanted/needed to contact the Navy to correct my "religion" on the paperwork, which is what I did.
When you arrive in boot camp, one of the things you receive are your dog tags. Dog tags are flat metal plates strung on ceiling fan pool chains that you wear around your neck. There are two tags. One on the main chain, and one on a much smaller chain that is hanging on the big chain. This smaller one is known as a "toe tag". Anyone familiar with shows like CSI should be familiar with the term. On the tags are your name, ID number, branch of service, blood type, and religion. Where it said "religion" it said "NO REL PREF": No Religious Preference.
Here, as I find myself at the end of a sabbatical, I find myself faced with defining the religion I ascribe to. This sabbatical has brought many things to light of where my head/heart/belief structure is, as you can read in past blog posts. I find that labeling my beliefs is much more difficult than it once was. I no longer consider myself Catholic. I've been going (for many years) to a church that jokingly/lovingly calls itself "Bapticostal" (the diligence in study of the bible as the Baptists, with the embrace of the movement and involvement of the Holy Spirit as the Pentecostals). They have been called Charismatic and Non-Denominational. And I have called myself the same.
I could have said "Christian", but the question was concerning my religion. "Christian" literally means "Christ follower", a disciple of Jesus. A relational word that describes a child to their parent. There is a big difference between calling yourself a Christian and calling yourself a Catholic (or Methodist, or Lutheran, or even Bapticostal). And, due to my journey during this sabbatical, I am having a lot of difficulty ascribing myself to one of them.
I turned to the lady and told her NO REL PREF: No Religious Preference.
©Emittravel
While at the lab, the staff had to update some of my records in their system, and one of the questions I was asked was what was my religion.
When I joined the Navy at seventeen years old, one of the many questions asked, in the multitude of paperwork, was the same thing: what was my religion. I grew up Roman Catholic, so that is what I put down. Later, when I turned eighteen, I announced to my parents that I was no longer considering myself a Catholic and was no longer going to church. They didn't like it too much, but since I was eighteen, they accepted my decision. That meant that I wanted/needed to contact the Navy to correct my "religion" on the paperwork, which is what I did.
When you arrive in boot camp, one of the things you receive are your dog tags. Dog tags are flat metal plates strung on ceiling fan pool chains that you wear around your neck. There are two tags. One on the main chain, and one on a much smaller chain that is hanging on the big chain. This smaller one is known as a "toe tag". Anyone familiar with shows like CSI should be familiar with the term. On the tags are your name, ID number, branch of service, blood type, and religion. Where it said "religion" it said "NO REL PREF": No Religious Preference.
Here, as I find myself at the end of a sabbatical, I find myself faced with defining the religion I ascribe to. This sabbatical has brought many things to light of where my head/heart/belief structure is, as you can read in past blog posts. I find that labeling my beliefs is much more difficult than it once was. I no longer consider myself Catholic. I've been going (for many years) to a church that jokingly/lovingly calls itself "Bapticostal" (the diligence in study of the bible as the Baptists, with the embrace of the movement and involvement of the Holy Spirit as the Pentecostals). They have been called Charismatic and Non-Denominational. And I have called myself the same.
I could have said "Christian", but the question was concerning my religion. "Christian" literally means "Christ follower", a disciple of Jesus. A relational word that describes a child to their parent. There is a big difference between calling yourself a Christian and calling yourself a Catholic (or Methodist, or Lutheran, or even Bapticostal). And, due to my journey during this sabbatical, I am having a lot of difficulty ascribing myself to one of them.
I turned to the lady and told her NO REL PREF: No Religious Preference.
©Emittravel
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Doing Time
What follows may be a little odd, coming from a person who is on a sabbatical from "intellectual Christianity", but I think it will stimulate your thinking. This follows closely in hand with a talk I gave to a group of men at a breakfast a few years ago. Since the subject matter was up to me, what I presented was a passion of mine: time and time travel. I know, a weird topic for a group of Christian men. I posted my talk (as a transcript) to my blog: "I Grasp It, But It Keeps Slippin' Outta My Hands!". Please take a moment to read that before continuing, or what follows may seem even more outrageous than it does on the surface. May I suggest skimming down until you reach the paragraph that starts with "Anyone who has gotten to know me knows that I am hooked on the concept of time and time travel", as the beginning is more of an introduction for the guys at the breakfast.
Okay. Ready to go on?
When I first embraced Christianity's Protestant flavor, one of the notable differences between it and the Catholic upbringing I had, was their view of the cross. If you have never seen one, a crucifix is a cross with Jesus on it. The Protestants embrace a cross with Jesus notably absent. The reason for the difference is that Catholics want to keep the crucifixion in front of their attention, whereas Protestants believe that, since Jesus is no longer on the cross, and has risen from the dead, the cross should be empty.
Which is right? In a sense, both.
As a quick overview, Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for their sins. The bible says that the penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23). This "payment" is commonly known as the grace of God: you didn't earn it - you just accepted it - God did all the work. The alternative is paying the penalty yourself.
Here's the question: What does the bible mean by "death"?
If the answer is physical death, than once you physically die, you've made the payment and "bam!" you're in heaven with God. If that is true, Jesus dying on the cross was a complete waste of time - you can do that payment on your own!
If the answer is spiritual death, than once you sin, you've died spiritually (become separate from God), made the payment, and again, "bam!" you're with God. If that is true, Jesus dying on the cross was a complete waste of time as well. Since we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
As a quick aside, the reason spiritual death is separation from God is that God is absolute holiness. It is not that God cannot be in the presence of sin, but sin cannot be in the presence of pure holiness. God's purity would "annihilate" the sinner. So, it is the love of God that keeps a sinner separate from Him. (Make sense?)
In the account of Adam and Eve, they were told in the day that they eat of the fruit (of the knowledge of good and evil) they would die. They ate, and didn't physically die. Actually, in pre-Jewish tradition, God slew an animal (shed the blood of an animal - killing it) and made tunics for them (Genesis 3:21). That "payment" was a temporary patch, if you will. In the Old Testament Laws, animals were sacrificed to pay for the sins of the people almost continuously. This was to cover the spiritual sin of the people temporarily, until he could send Jesus to make the payment once and for all on the cross.
So, if it is neither physical nor spiritual, what kind of death are we talking about?
Here is where I may seem a little cray-cray, and why I suggested you read "I Grasp It … "
The only kind of death that fits the penalty is "eternal separation from God". That's it. No other kind of death would fit the bill. Because of a person's sin, that person would be eternally separated from God - because like I said above, sin cannot be in the presence of a holy God.
So how did Jesus' hanging on the cross for a few hours, and dying there, pay the penalty of eternal separation? Let's look at three statements made by Jesus while on the cross:
"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." (Luke 23:34)
"… My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46)
" … Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit …" (Luke 23:46)
Did you see what happened there? Jesus went from calling Him "Father", to "God", to "Father" again. The only time Jesus did not refer to God as "Father" was while on the cross. It was at that point that God "turned His head" and did not look upon Jesus, who had taken the sin of the world upon Himself (you can lookup the doctrine of the "scapegoat" on your own).
How long a time went between those statements is not known, but no matter how long, it does not add up to "eternal separation", since Jesus DID go back to calling God "Father" while still on the cross. So how DID He pay that price?
Remember at the beginning of this particular blog article, when I said that both the Catholics and the Protestants were correct in their view of the cross? They both ARE!
As I said in "I Grasp It … ", eternity is not defined as "time without end", but as "NO time". God lives outside of time. That is why He is without beginning or end (if He had beginning and end, he could not be God - as that would mean He is caused, and not cause-LESS).
In God's eyes, Jesus is "still" on the cross - separated from Him, and ALSO sitting on His right hand (Luke 22:69)
But J.P., the bible says that without the shedding of BLOOD there is no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22). I'm sorry, you are so right. As a matter of fact, I cut myself shaving this morning - therefore I shed blood and paid for my sins. Of course not! The shedding of blood is another way of saying DEATH.
So, the Catholic crucifix is right, because for God, Jesus is eternally separated from Him on the cross (in eternity - get it?), and the Protestant "empty" cross is right, because Jesus is no longer there.
I guess this makes me either a Catholestant, or a Protatholic. And now, back to my sabbatical.
("Doing Time" is the title of a song by Bad Religion, from the album "How Could Hell Be Any Worse?" - catch the irony?)
© Emittravel 2015
Okay. Ready to go on?
When I first embraced Christianity's Protestant flavor, one of the notable differences between it and the Catholic upbringing I had, was their view of the cross. If you have never seen one, a crucifix is a cross with Jesus on it. The Protestants embrace a cross with Jesus notably absent. The reason for the difference is that Catholics want to keep the crucifixion in front of their attention, whereas Protestants believe that, since Jesus is no longer on the cross, and has risen from the dead, the cross should be empty.
Which is right? In a sense, both.
As a quick overview, Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for their sins. The bible says that the penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23). This "payment" is commonly known as the grace of God: you didn't earn it - you just accepted it - God did all the work. The alternative is paying the penalty yourself.
Here's the question: What does the bible mean by "death"?
If the answer is physical death, than once you physically die, you've made the payment and "bam!" you're in heaven with God. If that is true, Jesus dying on the cross was a complete waste of time - you can do that payment on your own!
If the answer is spiritual death, than once you sin, you've died spiritually (become separate from God), made the payment, and again, "bam!" you're with God. If that is true, Jesus dying on the cross was a complete waste of time as well. Since we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
As a quick aside, the reason spiritual death is separation from God is that God is absolute holiness. It is not that God cannot be in the presence of sin, but sin cannot be in the presence of pure holiness. God's purity would "annihilate" the sinner. So, it is the love of God that keeps a sinner separate from Him. (Make sense?)
In the account of Adam and Eve, they were told in the day that they eat of the fruit (of the knowledge of good and evil) they would die. They ate, and didn't physically die. Actually, in pre-Jewish tradition, God slew an animal (shed the blood of an animal - killing it) and made tunics for them (Genesis 3:21). That "payment" was a temporary patch, if you will. In the Old Testament Laws, animals were sacrificed to pay for the sins of the people almost continuously. This was to cover the spiritual sin of the people temporarily, until he could send Jesus to make the payment once and for all on the cross.
So, if it is neither physical nor spiritual, what kind of death are we talking about?
Here is where I may seem a little cray-cray, and why I suggested you read "I Grasp It … "
The only kind of death that fits the penalty is "eternal separation from God". That's it. No other kind of death would fit the bill. Because of a person's sin, that person would be eternally separated from God - because like I said above, sin cannot be in the presence of a holy God.
So how did Jesus' hanging on the cross for a few hours, and dying there, pay the penalty of eternal separation? Let's look at three statements made by Jesus while on the cross:
"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." (Luke 23:34)
"… My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46)
" … Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit …" (Luke 23:46)
Did you see what happened there? Jesus went from calling Him "Father", to "God", to "Father" again. The only time Jesus did not refer to God as "Father" was while on the cross. It was at that point that God "turned His head" and did not look upon Jesus, who had taken the sin of the world upon Himself (you can lookup the doctrine of the "scapegoat" on your own).
How long a time went between those statements is not known, but no matter how long, it does not add up to "eternal separation", since Jesus DID go back to calling God "Father" while still on the cross. So how DID He pay that price?
Remember at the beginning of this particular blog article, when I said that both the Catholics and the Protestants were correct in their view of the cross? They both ARE!
As I said in "I Grasp It … ", eternity is not defined as "time without end", but as "NO time". God lives outside of time. That is why He is without beginning or end (if He had beginning and end, he could not be God - as that would mean He is caused, and not cause-LESS).
In God's eyes, Jesus is "still" on the cross - separated from Him, and ALSO sitting on His right hand (Luke 22:69)
But J.P., the bible says that without the shedding of BLOOD there is no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22). I'm sorry, you are so right. As a matter of fact, I cut myself shaving this morning - therefore I shed blood and paid for my sins. Of course not! The shedding of blood is another way of saying DEATH.
So, the Catholic crucifix is right, because for God, Jesus is eternally separated from Him on the cross (in eternity - get it?), and the Protestant "empty" cross is right, because Jesus is no longer there.
I guess this makes me either a Catholestant, or a Protatholic. And now, back to my sabbatical.
("Doing Time" is the title of a song by Bad Religion, from the album "How Could Hell Be Any Worse?" - catch the irony?)
© Emittravel 2015
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Walkin' the Line
Years ago, a minister named Kenneth Hagin made a comment that the Christian church goes to such extremes that it finds itself in either one ditch or the other, never seeming to stay in the middle of the road very long. Even though he was the leading voice of the Name-it-claim-it faith movement (clearly nestled in one of the ditches), I have to say that he was on to something there.
Extremes. That seems to sum up us humans pretty well. We go all in on the things that we are drawn to. Some are simply more culturally acceptable than others. For instance, thanks to recent Marvel movies, being a comic book geek is not such a weird thing anymore. Those people have moved out of their parents' basements and now are filling convention centers to beyond capacity. Are they extremists? In a sense, yes. But they are acceptable extremists.
As a person on a sabbatical from "intellectual Christianity", I find myself reflecting on what brought me to where I am. I also find I'm hypersensitive to the extremes. Maybe it's my fear of finding myself in one of the ditches again.
I used to be in one ditch as a youth. I was, what I considered, a devout Catholic. I was an altar boy. I read my father's prayer book (including the Latin - which was indecipherable to me) over and over. As I grew older, I joined the music team at the church - making up tenor harmonies as a 14-year old in a then-contemporary guitar group. Even after becoming a born-again Christian (which could be considered an extreme by some), I still attended the Catholic church for awhile.
As I mentioned above, I was what I considered a devout Catholic. Recently, my wife and I had an experience with a REALLY devout Catholic that ended up spawning this particular post.
Since I started this sabbatical, my wife has chosen to go to a local Catholic church. In their bulletin was a blurb asking for donations of gently-used Catholic items. There is a Catholic book/gift store that was accepting these donations. My wife had some that travelled from her condo to our house that never really got out of the boxes. We gathered them up and went to drop them off. There we met a lady on staff who believed every person who walked in was straight from the Vatican in their devotion to Catholicism. We certainly didn't fit the description, but she didn't know that. She talked about Saint This and Sister So-and-So, and showed us books from authors I've never heard of. They might as well have been bloggers! (Oh, wait.)
As we were trying to leave, she kept bringing up more and more things that might interest. The last was to point out the state banner of Mary (apparently, every state has one for their individual state). If we wanted to, we were encouraged to bring in our rosaries so that we could touch them to the banner and receive a special blessing.
It was a bit muddy in that ditch.
On the Protestant side, as I've made known in previous blogs, we have the worship of the bible. Just because you put the word "Holy" on the cover, does not automatically make it an object of worship. I believe that the bible CONTAINS the word of God, but it is NOT the word of God. There are many things in there that are clearly historical in nature, and statements made by the writers that tell you what you are reading is their opinion and not that of the Lord. (For example, the tradition of dedicating children instead of baptizing them is based on something Paul said, and not the Lord - 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 NKJV)
There is a passage in the epistles (2 Timothy) that says all scripture is given by inspiration of God. This is one of those passages that I hear quoted to prove that the whole bible is inspired of God, and therefore worthy of the title of "Holy". I like to point out that when Paul wrote that letter to Timothy, he was not referring to the letter he was writing as scripture! That's a lot of hutzpah! In actuality, whenever "scripture" is referenced in the New Testament, what is referred to is the OLD Testament. That was all they had! They had no idea that what they were writing was going to be compiled into a book.
So, on one side you have the worship of the bible - that everything in it is pure, inerrant, and holy, and on the other you have touching rosaries to pictures of Mary to get blessings - which is found NOWHERE in the bible.
Extremism is found on both sides of the aisle, for sure. It's easy to go from one side to the other. If man says it, most likely it has an agenda and is full of error. Think of the extreme sides when it comes to climate change, evolution, religious beliefs, politics, and whether or not coffee (chocolate, or eggs) is good for you.
So in closing, consider taking a spiritual Breathalyzer, try to walk the line, and stay out of the ditches!
(The title is inspired from Johnny Cash's "I Walk the Line" - "I keep a close watch on this heart of mine. I keep my eyes wide open all the time. … I walk the line.")
© Emittravel 2014
Extremes. That seems to sum up us humans pretty well. We go all in on the things that we are drawn to. Some are simply more culturally acceptable than others. For instance, thanks to recent Marvel movies, being a comic book geek is not such a weird thing anymore. Those people have moved out of their parents' basements and now are filling convention centers to beyond capacity. Are they extremists? In a sense, yes. But they are acceptable extremists.
As a person on a sabbatical from "intellectual Christianity", I find myself reflecting on what brought me to where I am. I also find I'm hypersensitive to the extremes. Maybe it's my fear of finding myself in one of the ditches again.
I used to be in one ditch as a youth. I was, what I considered, a devout Catholic. I was an altar boy. I read my father's prayer book (including the Latin - which was indecipherable to me) over and over. As I grew older, I joined the music team at the church - making up tenor harmonies as a 14-year old in a then-contemporary guitar group. Even after becoming a born-again Christian (which could be considered an extreme by some), I still attended the Catholic church for awhile.
As I mentioned above, I was what I considered a devout Catholic. Recently, my wife and I had an experience with a REALLY devout Catholic that ended up spawning this particular post.
Since I started this sabbatical, my wife has chosen to go to a local Catholic church. In their bulletin was a blurb asking for donations of gently-used Catholic items. There is a Catholic book/gift store that was accepting these donations. My wife had some that travelled from her condo to our house that never really got out of the boxes. We gathered them up and went to drop them off. There we met a lady on staff who believed every person who walked in was straight from the Vatican in their devotion to Catholicism. We certainly didn't fit the description, but she didn't know that. She talked about Saint This and Sister So-and-So, and showed us books from authors I've never heard of. They might as well have been bloggers! (Oh, wait.)
As we were trying to leave, she kept bringing up more and more things that might interest. The last was to point out the state banner of Mary (apparently, every state has one for their individual state). If we wanted to, we were encouraged to bring in our rosaries so that we could touch them to the banner and receive a special blessing.
It was a bit muddy in that ditch.
On the Protestant side, as I've made known in previous blogs, we have the worship of the bible. Just because you put the word "Holy" on the cover, does not automatically make it an object of worship. I believe that the bible CONTAINS the word of God, but it is NOT the word of God. There are many things in there that are clearly historical in nature, and statements made by the writers that tell you what you are reading is their opinion and not that of the Lord. (For example, the tradition of dedicating children instead of baptizing them is based on something Paul said, and not the Lord - 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 NKJV)
There is a passage in the epistles (2 Timothy) that says all scripture is given by inspiration of God. This is one of those passages that I hear quoted to prove that the whole bible is inspired of God, and therefore worthy of the title of "Holy". I like to point out that when Paul wrote that letter to Timothy, he was not referring to the letter he was writing as scripture! That's a lot of hutzpah! In actuality, whenever "scripture" is referenced in the New Testament, what is referred to is the OLD Testament. That was all they had! They had no idea that what they were writing was going to be compiled into a book.
So, on one side you have the worship of the bible - that everything in it is pure, inerrant, and holy, and on the other you have touching rosaries to pictures of Mary to get blessings - which is found NOWHERE in the bible.
Extremism is found on both sides of the aisle, for sure. It's easy to go from one side to the other. If man says it, most likely it has an agenda and is full of error. Think of the extreme sides when it comes to climate change, evolution, religious beliefs, politics, and whether or not coffee (chocolate, or eggs) is good for you.
So in closing, consider taking a spiritual Breathalyzer, try to walk the line, and stay out of the ditches!
(The title is inspired from Johnny Cash's "I Walk the Line" - "I keep a close watch on this heart of mine. I keep my eyes wide open all the time. … I walk the line.")
© Emittravel 2014
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Stuff My Brain Says #69
Went to Mass with my wife and her family. According to the Church calendar, it was the "Feast of the Holy Family".
The priest made a comment during his homily (Cliff Note Sermon), when he was talking about the differences between our families and the Holy Family (Jesus, Mary, and Joseph), that actually made me chuckle out loud. I tried to keep it down, but Lisa noticed. He mentioned the mystery of Jesus being conceived miraculously in Mary's womb, and Mary being conceived miraculously in her mother's womb. Okay, Jesus' conception was miraculous. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit overshadowing the (at the time) Virgin Mary. But to say something similar happened to Mary was hysterical to me.
(NOTE: Please understand that this is based on one comment during a 15-minute or so sermon. The rest of it was beautiful, honest, heart-warming, and challenging to us the listeners. It was a terrific sermon by a man who obviously loves God and His people.}
See, the Catholic Church has deemed that Mary is "ever virgin". She was the mother of God, and therefore HAD to be sinless in order to carry Jesus. The problem with that is that in order for Mary to be born sinless, HER mother had to be born sinless, and HER mother before her, all the way to Eve. She never consummated her marriage to Joseph (which means they lived in sin, doesn't it?!?) so she was "ever virgin". Something that powerful should be pretty clear in scripture. It's not. No where do you find a passage that tells of an angel coming to Mary's mother and telling her, "Behold, the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the child that will be conceived will be the mother of God, who will have the Holy Spirit come upon HER, so that the child SHE conceives will be Christ the Lord." If the account of John the Baptist's conception/birth would take so much ink, you'd think something as important as Mary's conception would ALSO warrant a few lines of scripture.
Mary was a young girl, never having known a man, when the Holy Spirit came upon her. Because of this conception, Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. If Mary was conceived similarly, SHE would be 100% God and 100% man as well. That is not true. She herself said that she was in need of a savior. Jesus, on the other hand, did not. She was also not "ever virgin". She gave birth to her "first-born" child. To say "first-born" denotes at least a "second-born". Secondly, later in the gospels it is told of Jesus' brothers and sisters (the word used does NOT translate as "cousin"). And finally, it's difficult to believe that God would want Mary and Joseph to never consummate their relationship.
I understand why the Catholic Church came up with this: it was in response to the concept that if Jesus was born of sinful flesh, He Himself would be born with sin. But the solution given doesn't hold water (referring to Mary's whole lineage needing to be sinless).
I'm surprised that nobody even presented this argument at the time.
Or, maybe someone did. People died over "heresy" often back in the day. ;-)
© Emittravel 2013
The priest made a comment during his homily (Cliff Note Sermon), when he was talking about the differences between our families and the Holy Family (Jesus, Mary, and Joseph), that actually made me chuckle out loud. I tried to keep it down, but Lisa noticed. He mentioned the mystery of Jesus being conceived miraculously in Mary's womb, and Mary being conceived miraculously in her mother's womb. Okay, Jesus' conception was miraculous. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit overshadowing the (at the time) Virgin Mary. But to say something similar happened to Mary was hysterical to me.
(NOTE: Please understand that this is based on one comment during a 15-minute or so sermon. The rest of it was beautiful, honest, heart-warming, and challenging to us the listeners. It was a terrific sermon by a man who obviously loves God and His people.}
See, the Catholic Church has deemed that Mary is "ever virgin". She was the mother of God, and therefore HAD to be sinless in order to carry Jesus. The problem with that is that in order for Mary to be born sinless, HER mother had to be born sinless, and HER mother before her, all the way to Eve. She never consummated her marriage to Joseph (which means they lived in sin, doesn't it?!?) so she was "ever virgin". Something that powerful should be pretty clear in scripture. It's not. No where do you find a passage that tells of an angel coming to Mary's mother and telling her, "Behold, the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the child that will be conceived will be the mother of God, who will have the Holy Spirit come upon HER, so that the child SHE conceives will be Christ the Lord." If the account of John the Baptist's conception/birth would take so much ink, you'd think something as important as Mary's conception would ALSO warrant a few lines of scripture.
Mary was a young girl, never having known a man, when the Holy Spirit came upon her. Because of this conception, Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. If Mary was conceived similarly, SHE would be 100% God and 100% man as well. That is not true. She herself said that she was in need of a savior. Jesus, on the other hand, did not. She was also not "ever virgin". She gave birth to her "first-born" child. To say "first-born" denotes at least a "second-born". Secondly, later in the gospels it is told of Jesus' brothers and sisters (the word used does NOT translate as "cousin"). And finally, it's difficult to believe that God would want Mary and Joseph to never consummate their relationship.
I understand why the Catholic Church came up with this: it was in response to the concept that if Jesus was born of sinful flesh, He Himself would be born with sin. But the solution given doesn't hold water (referring to Mary's whole lineage needing to be sinless).
I'm surprised that nobody even presented this argument at the time.
Or, maybe someone did. People died over "heresy" often back in the day. ;-)
© Emittravel 2013
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Ptolemy Syndrome
Long before Copernicus discovered that the earth revolved around the sun, Ptolemy believed and taught that everything revolved around the earth. The earth was considered the center of the universe. As a matter of fact, Copernicus got in a lot of trouble with the Catholic Church because of his discovery. Some people just have difficulty believing that the universe does NOT revolve around THEM. I'm sure you have met a few of these in your time. Below are just a few that I thought of. I'd love to hear others - feel free to post them to this blog. Maybe people will be enlightened . . . like Copernicus . . .
People who can't count in a 12 Items or Fewer line.
Men who think they have better aim than they do, and leave the toilet seat down.
People who use the Entrance as an Exit of a parking lot.
Texting while driving.
Taking the last cup of coffee out of the pot and leaving the empty one on the burner to burn - or better yet, not making another pot for somebody after them.
Those people who travel down the lane that is ending so that they can merge at the front of the line, thereby causing a traffic jam.
People who take two parking spaces.
People who don't use those really convenient shopping cart collectors in parking lots and just leave the cart in an empty space. You know, the space you were about to pull into.
Those individuals who pull out in front of you and then travel about ten miles below the speed limit.
Line cutters.
People who refuse to use the crosswalk buttons/signals, and walk on the "don't walk" - making the traffic wait for them.
Those individuals who drive with their high beams on, even when approaching on-coming traffic.
People using their electronic devices on a plane before they are allowed to.
Two-year olds. Enough said.
Those who come to Mass and make a bee-line to the exit immediately after communion. I mean, this is God's house. Would you go to someone's house and have dinner, and leave before dessert? That's kind of rude.
People who walk around stores and leave things in various places, because they decided they didn't want to buy them, instead of putting them back where they came from.
People who change the diaper of their child inside their car, and leave the dirty diaper on the ground in the middle of the parking lot.
Did I mention the non-use of turn signals?
Those who throw trash out of their car, when they are only twenty feet from a trash can. (See the diaper comment above . . . )
People who believe that their opinion is right over everybody else, and everybody has a right to their opinion. Oh wait a minute, that one is me.
© Emittravel 2012
© Emittravel 2012
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Oh Man, Not Another Poetry Lesson!
One type of writing I post on this blog is poetry. I know that many people don’t give a turkey’s quill feather about poetry, but I’m okay with that. I post them because they are about My Humble But Accurate Opinion. But instead of the musings of my mind, my poetry runs the spectrum of emotion. Starting in December of 1984, and running through the present, I’ve attempted to capture the issues of life as I experienced them.
The first poem, “Dreaming of You”, was written during some major changes in my life. I had gotten into the U.S. Navy a few months prior; the first time to be truly away from home and on my own. I was in love with a girl back home and missing her terribly. So, for the first time I put my feelings into writing. Truly one of my favorite poems.
After that I used that creative outlet to express myself. The way most of these came about was that I felt a deep desire to write, driven by an emotion strongly felt in my heart. Usually, the only way to describe that emotion was to start writing. I compare the experience to “giving birth”. Not that it’s something I’ve ever truly experienced, mind you, but the cycle seemed the same. It was laborious to do. Sometimes I didn’t like the challenge of picking up the pen, because I knew what I was getting myself into. Not until I knew the poem was complete would that emotion subside, and the “baby” was born.
Not all of my poetry came about in that fashion. Some simply were the results of exposure. Being a sailor, the life of strip bars and pornography was a usual part of the life, and effected my outlooks and me.
I guess the most important thing to notice as you read is my hunger for God. When I had turned eighteen, I had abandoned my roots as a Catholic to look for God on my own. I had become greatly disillusioned with what I grew up believing, and felt that there had to be something more. You will see in the writings my hunger for Him, and my eventual coming to know Him through a relationship with His son Jesus.
All in all, these writings came from within me. They were attempts to express my opinions and myself. Not all of them will strike you, but they don’t have to. But rest assured, at one time in my life they struck me – that’s why they were written.
I wish I could share some of the more recent works, but nothing has come out in awhile. Who knows? Maybe I'll be "struck" again and write more.
I post them with their original dates for a reason – they are a reflection of who I was at that time in my life. I hope that through them you may find some of yourself as well, or at least give you reflection on that person you used to be.
© Emittravel 2011
The first poem, “Dreaming of You”, was written during some major changes in my life. I had gotten into the U.S. Navy a few months prior; the first time to be truly away from home and on my own. I was in love with a girl back home and missing her terribly. So, for the first time I put my feelings into writing. Truly one of my favorite poems.
After that I used that creative outlet to express myself. The way most of these came about was that I felt a deep desire to write, driven by an emotion strongly felt in my heart. Usually, the only way to describe that emotion was to start writing. I compare the experience to “giving birth”. Not that it’s something I’ve ever truly experienced, mind you, but the cycle seemed the same. It was laborious to do. Sometimes I didn’t like the challenge of picking up the pen, because I knew what I was getting myself into. Not until I knew the poem was complete would that emotion subside, and the “baby” was born.
Not all of my poetry came about in that fashion. Some simply were the results of exposure. Being a sailor, the life of strip bars and pornography was a usual part of the life, and effected my outlooks and me.
I guess the most important thing to notice as you read is my hunger for God. When I had turned eighteen, I had abandoned my roots as a Catholic to look for God on my own. I had become greatly disillusioned with what I grew up believing, and felt that there had to be something more. You will see in the writings my hunger for Him, and my eventual coming to know Him through a relationship with His son Jesus.
All in all, these writings came from within me. They were attempts to express my opinions and myself. Not all of them will strike you, but they don’t have to. But rest assured, at one time in my life they struck me – that’s why they were written.
I wish I could share some of the more recent works, but nothing has come out in awhile. Who knows? Maybe I'll be "struck" again and write more.
I post them with their original dates for a reason – they are a reflection of who I was at that time in my life. I hope that through them you may find some of yourself as well, or at least give you reflection on that person you used to be.
© Emittravel 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)