Is Christianity Anti-Christian?

Christians agree that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is God made flesh. Indeed, to be considered a Christian, one must follow the teachings of Christ. But while this Truth appears to be self evident, it is also the ultimate problem. And this problem permeates the world around us.

The origin of this problem is that the teachings of Christ are mediated through humans and through human systems of information processing, which are all flawed and contaminated with sin from the start. In other words, that which is sinful claims to be able to process that which has no sin. And with this as the premise, we begin our exploration.

Take a man or a woman who believes that God has put a message upon their heart; with utmost conviction, that particular man or woman begins the process of fulfilling heaven's message. Be it to actualize a life in the service of the Church, or to organize a community around a set of truths of principles, something burns deep in the breast of the one whom God calls. And the feeling to satisfy this unseen motivation cannot be stopped or detoured. The spirit moves and brings with it the flesh.

Take yet another man or woman who has heard the beckoning of the Father (John 6:44). With a spirit set a fire from the mouth of God, that man or woman pursues and chases the the One who has sent the message. With utter conviction, they act in a manner they know will honor the Father who sees them in the privacy of their heart (Matt 6:6).

Now that I have your attention, let us talk about division (Matt 3:24). If there is but one God who sets the hearts of humanity on fire with the Holy Ghost -- if there is but one God who touches the hearts of these whom He beckons in the first place -- there should be no contradiction among those who hear His one voice. Notice that I used the word "contradiction" which means:

con·tra·dic·tion [kon-truh-dik-shuhn]

1. the act of contradicting;  gainsaying or opposition
2. assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
3. a statement or proposition that contradicts  or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
4. direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
5. a contradictory act, fact, etc.

While there are differences in interpretation of God's influence, there should be no contradiction between essential and fundamental meanings and teachings. Rather, at most, each interpretation should bring attention to a particular nuance of the larger Truth expressed by the one God through many human tongues. But we know from experience that this is not the case at all.

One Church claims that God motivated them to act in such-and-such manner and to adopt so-and-so teachings, while another Church acts, believes, and teaches in the opposite for the same reasons. It boils down to this: if God has been identified as the primary motivator, and if there is no contradiction to be found in God (1 John 1:5), how can there be contradiction among the hearts that people have claimed that God has touched? Is God to blame for Christianity's contradiction or are we humans to blame for it? It is easy to see that the structure of some versions of Christianity are built upon a selfish foundation -- a fundamentally un-Christian foundation.

And it is certain that a testament to this division is that each Church will justify their creation with being commanded from God. Each split, each division of Christianity occurs because the one doing the splitting believes that he or she is acting according to what God has placed upon their heart. Here, then, God is no more than a reflection in the mirror in our minds -- and perpetual contradiction is proof.

Your Codependency is Annoying

I understand the importance of communication.

But "constant communication" with a significant other points to deeper insecurities that are, well, annoying. Let me illuminate:

Nothing smacks of codependency more than being attached to the cellphone, speaking with your partner about whatever-the-latest-drama-or-catastrophe is. And it is an utter "hell-in-a-hand-basket ... the-world-is-ending-amid-horror-and-terror" catastrophe, isn't it? What needed to be said must be said here and now with either a call or through a text message ... preferably both, just in case one or the other was accidentally missed.

But we both know that there are no real "accidents" with cell phones, right? Isn't "accident" just another name for "excuse?" Everyone knows that your number would be recorded as a missed call. The reason why he or she isn't returning your call with the same sense of urgency is because they're ignoring you. Yeah, you're being ignored because he's talking to another woman, or she's hooking up with another man. That's right. That must be it. The sacred and mature "love" and "trust" that forms the foundation of your relationship is being contaminated with the drippy sweat from another person. And it's happening right now -- it has to be. They're not thinking about you, right? And it's not too far of a step to assume that they're thinking about someone else. You'd better send a text message ... just in case. And while you're at it, send 2 more, ... hell, send a dozen until they call you back. Do whatever it takes to force them to think about you!

And when they actually call back, it signals the beginning of the next ritual: the apologetic explanation. They must explain the reason, the ever so important and dire reason, why they didn't answer the first time you called or texted. The reason seems to be the same -- they were doing something else -- something more important and more significant than you -- and couldn't get to the phone in time. "Yeah right," you think. "How does that excuse you from not checking your call history?" Thoughts such as, "You were with another woman, weren't you? You were hoeing around with someone else, huh?" fill your mind. And now you're mad. You love them so much, and look at how you're repaid. They don't really love you, do they? They mustn't because they prove it, time and time again, by how they ignore listening to that "hell-in-a-hand-basket ... the-world-is-ending-amid-horror-and-terror" catastrophe of yours.

That kind of drama seems to happen every five minutes, doesn't it?

That kind of drama keeps happening every time you two are apart, right?

I know you don't care how people see your relationship from the outside. What do other people know? It's your relationship and other people have no business in it. Who cares what they think. And that's true. No one else has any business in your relationship. But your codependency advertises the short comings of your relationship to other people; it's like watching a plague spread. It's like seeing a bright neon sign 20 miles away in the dark desert. Everyone knows what it is.

Somehow you think and believe you must monitor and check up on your significant other through the guise of care and concern. You're not fooling everyone. Statistically speaking, there's not even a snowball's chance in hell that so much drama has spontaneously developed from the time your partner left your physical presence. Seriously, do you keep track of how much time passes BEFORE you initiate that first call of the day ... each day ... every day ... any time you're physically apart from one another?

I'm sorry.
Did I offend you?
I wouldn't know such a thing existed if it weren't for me seeing it and hearing it each time I ventured out in public.

We thank God with Golden Cows: the frailty of the human heart

Both the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) in the New Testament and the Book of Exodus in the Old Testament provide direct teaching about the human heart. The Book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament can also be said to teach about the human condition, however, because this particular book holds such a special place in the landscape of my interior world, I will dedicate more to it in later entries.

What Luke 16:19-31 and the Book of Exodus hold in common is that direct demonstration of the supernatural cannot change the human heart from its imperfect and fallen intention. While priests, ministers, and pastors frequently draw lessons about life after death from this passage in Luke, and while it can be said that Exodus establishes and communicates God's favor upon the Hebrews, few have concluded that each Biblical segment teaches how humanity's heart has the potential reject all things and truths, even when delivered from supernatural hands.

Luke 16:19-31[19] "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. [20] At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores [21] and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. [22] "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. [23] In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. [24] So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' [25] "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. [26] And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' [27] "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, [28] for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' [29] "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' [30] " 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' [31] "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Imagine someone you knew has died and has been dead for several days. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that this person was deceased. Now imagine their deceased body reanimates in order to deliver a warning message to you after a few days. Aside from the initial shock and terror from such an event, doubt and discredit will fill your mind shortly thereafter. "This can't be real -- I must be imagining things!" No matter how profound their message, no matter how convincing their message, it is destined to be dismissed. Such conclusions can be drawn about the person or the people who were impervious to hearing Truth in the first place; doubt, discredit, and dismissal is not fertile soil for the seed of Truth to grow. In this parable, Jesus taught that those who cannot or who will not hear the Truth in the word of God expressed through the Bible or expressed through the Prophets (Luke 16:29) will also not hear the expression of this Truth even if it comes from the mouth of someone who was known to be deceased (Luke 16:31). A supernatural phenomenon does not help those who are unwilling or unable to hear Truth in the first place. For those who are willing to hear it, a supernatural phenomenon is not necessary in the first place.

The story of Exodus is the story of how Moses led the Hebrew people from slavery in ancient Egypt. In this Old Testament account, Moses used supernatural phenomena to convince Pharaoh to free the Hebrews. But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and did not relent his position even in the face of plagues until the last one had passed (Exodus 7-11).

Plagues of the Old Testament

1. The Plague of Blood
2. The Plague of Frogs
3. The Plague of Gnats
4. The Plague of Flies
5. The Plague on Livestock
6. The Plague of Boils
7. The Plague of Hail
8. The Plague of Locusts
9. The Plague of Darkness
10. The Plague on the Firstborn

While we know that these supernatural events had little to no effect on Pharaoh's heart, we also know that the Hebrews witnessed these events too. The Hebrews saw how God moved against Egypt. The Hebrews also witnessed the miracle of the pillar that stood between them and Pharaoh's pursuing army. In addition, the Hebrews participated in the Crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 14:1-29). In other words, the Hebrews themselves both witnessed and were involved in God's miracles that set them free. There could be no doubt in anyone's mind that something supernatural was happening.

And how did the Hebrews thank their God? Exodus 32:4. Even in the face of miracles, humanity's fail heart moves against God. How much farther shall we fall having not seen the grandeur of these miracles and supernatural events? Sometimes, even knowing Truth and being a part of that Truth cannot save us from ourselves.

You are a function of how I perceive you to be

Everyone believes that they are right and justified in what they do. And this is no surprise. What person would live their life believing that all their choices are wrong? Who would perpetually second-guess themselves to the point of immobility? There comes a time when action must be taken, when the lesser of two evils must be chosen -- and we make this choice based upon what we consider to have the most profitable result. For who makes a deliberate choice knowing and hoping that the outcome will prove the most negative, unless of course, a negative outcome was the initial desired result? The one who lives their life believing that all their choices are wrong, the one who second-guesses themselves to the point of immobility are doing so because it aligns with some other larger goal. One thing seems to be certain: the choices we make reflect the desires we have, whether for bliss or woe.

Therefore, as we perceive our fellow human beings, the behavior we see signifies a context -- their context. And it must be mentioned that the perceptions of the observer also filter through the lens of their own preconceptions as well; there is no such thing as a perception-less perceiver. The behavior of the perceived occurs as the embodiment of their intention and purpose, while the observer's framework of interpretation, too, is the embodiment of intention and purpose. Such is the harmony between perceiver and perceived, each full with a world of intention and purpose.

Can we draw clear and divisive lines between the intentions and perceptions of the observer and the intentions and perceptions of the perceived? How much of what we see is function of our own perceptions, biases, and pre-conceptions? How much of what we know of other people stems from the self-fulling prophecy of our own experiences and person-hood? We cannot know the depths of our own mind, heart, and soul because the instruments of perception are not perfect themselves; we stand less of a chance knowing what moves in the depths of another person's heart. Yet at the same time, that which we perceive reflect choices and desires; how we perceive it also reflects choices and desires.

Consider misunderstanding: how often are we misunderstood? How often do we misunderstand? Words leave the mouth of the talker and are heard by the ears of the listener -- if biases and preconceptions did not exist, then there would be no further complications because the words would be understood in the same manner in which they were spoken. There would be no need to filter intentions or ask for clarification because listening and understanding would exist as a 1:1 ratio. But this is not the case. The moment words leave the mouth of the speaker, or in this case, the moment that words are written on the computer screen, and the words become fodder for others, the potential for misunderstanding is born in the self-same moment. In other words, I write or I speak and you interpret.

This is the chasm between people that will always prevent people from truly understanding one another. There might be moments where the intention of the speaker and the intention of the listener align closer together, however, to be perfectly aligned with one another is a fantasy. This fantasy of "oneness" perhaps has roots in the harmony experienced between fetus and mother while developing in the womb. At the moment of birth, at the moment of separation, such "oneness" is never to be experienced again, except perhaps by the religious who commune with God who they believe is in all places, even within their own hearts and minds.

Blogging beyond the curtain: revealing authorship to friends

From time to time, it helps me to pause and do a quick assessment of my thoughts, feelings, and behavior. I like to analyze the foundational basis or the grounding framework from where my personal thoughts and feelings come, although "introspection" has been discredited regarding its scientific merits -- for how can one discover something new from within whilst using the same mental tools borne from and that are a reflection of one's limited perspective in the first place? To put this another way: the skills of my insight are both a product of and are a reflection of my mental present processes; how can I use them to discover "new" ground within myself, since such interpretations occur through the lens of the present self?

At first, I was not going to share the existence of this personal blog of mine with my family, friends, and acquaintances. The reason is that I want to avoid being judged, or worse yet, misunderstood. A quick recount of my historical interactions on Twitter and Facebook will reveal that I will eventually explore "socially unacceptable" topics, such as sexual taboos, religious taboos, intellectual taboos. Eventually, I will also write about "dark" topics, such as suicide, depression, anger and fear. I will write critically and sharply about love, men, women, passion, self-deception, and general sexuality. I will also explore philosophical topics and religious topics, and I will at times be silly. I also tend to take elements from modern culture and place a spin on them. An example of this is a recent post I made on Google+, "G'morning, all. Today's advice: beware of emotional dementors in real life. Not sure what a dementor is or does? Consult Harry Potter. :)"

The point of the matter is that there is always a chance that I will write negatively about things that you, the reader, hold most dear. My perception of the wold has, in part, been influenced through my interactions with others. Such experiences and interactions, and my personal thoughts arising therefrom, will populate this blog. What this means is that while I will be writing while having a specific person or a specific situation in mind, I will write in such a manner that the larger lessons arising from these interactions will surface. In other words, while personal interaction serves as the initial fuel for the commentary, the specific interaction is not the end.

If you think I'm writing about you, allow me to offer a couple of suggestions: (a.) keep quiet; no one else knows that I'm talking about you specifically until you pipe up in the comments and blow your own cover, (b.) I really wasn't talking about you, but it would appear that you have some paranoia and/or narcissism occurring -- remember that issues pertaining to the human condition can and do apply to more than one person simultaneously, (c.) treat the commentary as a learning experience overall, whether or not you "think" I was talking about you.

Since I shared the existence of this blog with family and friends, then it follows that people will assume that when I write, I must be writing about family and friends -- and while this may or may not be true, the fact of the matter is that I'm articulating the movement of my consciousness. Such movements are not limited to family and friends -- so please do not assume anything, even though I know you will in any case. And because I know that family and friends will be reading, acting as the Freudian super-ego it would seem, the content that follows will have to be structured in such a manner as to not arouse paranoia and narcissism in the first place.

This leave me, the author, in a pickle: I want to write about topics in a way that I feel that I'm not betraying myself or my intent, while at the same time,  I know that I need to write in such a way that I'm sensitive to people's feelings. Regardless, I know there will be misunderstandings -- there always are misunderstandings, and hurt feelings come from these misunderstandings, and then awkward explanations are needed to soothe the hurt feelings, and everyone feels miserable for a while. Then time passes, and the situation happens again and again.

The issue of being socially acceptable while personally expressive brings up issues of its own: why is it that we must punish others with knowledge of the personal guilt they caused, why is it that we must take every opportunity to quell inklings of personal expression when we don't agree, and why must we make it known to both God and man alike that certain individuals hurt our feelings?

Observations in a Strange Land

I dare not compare myself and the articulation of my thoughts to Walker Percy. His insights belong to books while mine belong to blogs. However, Mr. Percy and I share two things in common: (a.) both of us are human, and (b.) both of us will die. Actually, we share three things in common: (c.) both of us are acutely aware of death's inevitability.

While thinking of what I wanted to do with this blog, the name of his book sprung into my mind. Perhaps I wanted to imitate his approach to the narrative; perhaps I lack originality. What makes my existence unique is that it is utterly mine, and mine alone. No other can know the world as I know it from my experiences through the unique configuration of my own neurons, synapses, and brain chemistry soup.

What this means, in less words, is that I have a unique perspective on life, the universe and everything. Notice that I did not say that my perspective is the correct perspective. Nor do I imply that my perspective should be the only one. Rather, I'm observing that my perspective is just that -- mine. And I own my opinions, thoughts, criticisms, insights, and shortcomings.

Where two or more are gathered, there too is disagreement in their midst. This play on Matt 18:20 means that I understand that at the moment I reveal my opinions, my thoughts, my insights, my criticisms, and my perspectives to the world, or rather, to just one other person, the potential for disagreement is born. Some of the things I will write in the blog will ruffle feathers -- your feathers -- to be sure. This serves a twofold purpose: (a.) I communicate what I feel or think and (b.) my words get you to feel or think too. And where I fail to get you to think in a constructive manner, I at least succeed in communicating snips from my interior life.

So there it is. Be offended. Be pensive. Make my knowledge your own, or reject it outright. Both you and I share two things in common now: (a.) we are both human, and (b.) we are both going to die one day. But before that day comes, let us live and profit from one another's company, shall we?