Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven
|
|
| Sunny Days in Heaven Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven |
|
|
Saturday, June 01, 2002 Thought for a Sunny Day 60 Once on a camping trip with a friend of mine, we were often annoyed at campgrounds and elsewhere by people with their endless supply of noisemaking machinery and behavior. Yet, I realized as I watched people at the Devil's Punchbowl in Oregon that people are irresistibly drawn to the Real in nature whether at the beach, the Redwoods, or rivers. All these noisy, TV toting campers, surfers, sailboarders, dune buggiers, snow mobilers, jet skiers, hang gliders, and so on are drawn to the Real. Wanting to see, feel, and touch it like Catholics with our relics, statues, sacraments and sacramentals. The sad part is that even as I mingle, talk, observe all these people, as much as they admire and desire the Real, they abjectly fear to be real themselves. They want the Real, but will not be real people. Or they attempt to confuse themselves with the thought that a sensual and superficial life is a real life because it seems a living form of being. Some times, at funerals, you hear the dead described as someone who "lived life to the fullest." What is really meant is that so and so had a boundless appetite for thrills, excitement, food, drink, pleasure, and was eternally restless. It is pathetic that anyone should confuse such a life with a real life. posted by Mark Butterworth | 11:47 PM | A theist or no? The basic atheist response to any assertion about God is generally - prove it! The theist's counterpoint may be the same. For the atheist, when asked how all life, creation, being, consciousness, and purpose came to pass, must point to the universe in its matter and energy and says, "from that." To which, the theist is happy to reply, prove it! (Which of course he can't. Nor answer the query - and pray tell where all 'that' came from?) But that's not the point of this blog. I once asked an atheist why, since he didn't believe in God, does he pray? "What do you mean? I'm an atheist. I don't pray." "You never proclaimed - Omygod! Jesus Christ! God help me. God d***it. To hell with you?" "Those are just expressions. They don't mean anything. I'm not praying." "Why would a rational man, such as yourself, resort unconsciously then to prayers to God of one kind or another?" "I told you, it doesn't mean anything." "But you tell me you are rational. Why do you appeal to a God you don't believe in or make oaths to the same God that doesn't exist? Why not say Oh Zeus! instead, if you want an oath? Who are you talking to? And if not God, then why would you address an imaginary being with your momentary problem or situation? Explain the rationale of that. If it means nothing, why say it?" "I'm not addressing any being since there is no God." "Then you are talking to your self? You must be mad then. That's not rational. But yet, you don't say, "Pete help me!" Once again, you say you're a super rational man. Explain once again why an intelligent being blurts out any words (well within your control, unless you are always at the mercy of your emotions) to someone who is not there? Wouldn't you say that was irrational?" And various swear words and vulgar oaths follow as the man who says he has no superstitions is always ready to address deity over any sudden and difficult or frightening situation. posted by Mark Butterworth | 3:43 PM | Wednesday, May 29, 2002 Men's Rights Dan Walter's has this headline to his column in the Sac Bee today: "Men gain a rare victory in political gender war as DNA bill passes" and a few paragraphs from the article state: The men won a rare skirmish in the state Assembly on Tuesday when it voted 51-3 to make it easier for men to challenge child-support orders when DNA tests prove that they are not the biological fathers of the children involved. The measure is backed by men's rights groups, and advocates, including its author, Assemblyman Rod Wright, D-Los Angeles, said it was a matter of fundamental fairness, likening it to DNA tests that free wrongly convicted prisoners. But critics said it would plunge more children into poverty, and Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, said it would resurrect the "age-old double standard." The Wright bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate, and even if it clears that hurdle, an uncertain fate in Davis' hands. He's quite aware that he needs female voters to win re-election. The Libertarians may love this idea, but there are overwhelmingly good reasons why the laws of States recognized that the children born in wedlock were the legal children of the male partner. It's not an issue that gets solved by DNA tests. Many men were away from home for long periods and came home to children they had obviously not fathered. It didn't matter, they were the responsible paternal parent under the law. Why? Because the most important person in this matter is the child, not the father's rights. Children need a father whether natural or not. The State presumed (in a sense) that the child is not to suffer for the sins of his parents. Also that each parent chose the other - they made their bed, they each had to lie in it. If one chose unwisely in a mate, the children shouldn't have to suffer for it. This new law would say, tough luck kids, your mom's a whore, your dad's a heartless bum, you're on your own. Many of these non-bio-dads have often been the caring father for a number of years before they discovered their wife's sin. They get outraged, divorce the mom, and want to throw away the child who dumbly believes his male parent is his daddy because he dearly loves him and is absolutely bonded to him. But sweet dad is furious over being the cuckold and wants to punish any or everyone he can for his hurt. This is terrible for children. Better an adult should swallow his pride and care for another's offspring than that a child should be called a bastard. Of course, that idea prevailed when we were a more (evil) Christian society. Now secular charity demands that the innocent suffer more than the guilty and the responsible. I hope this bill does not pass. It is the epitome of selfishness and cruelty. posted by Mark Butterworth | 11:41 AM | Answer in terms For those waiting with bated breath, the problem with Emily's statement in the blog below this one is that it attempts to make an absolute statement about a relative condition. If we have "little, human minds" we cannot comprehend God at all, and we certainly don't know enough to make absolute statements about Him. Her statement is the equivalent of saying - Everything is Relative. A contradiction in terms. Like saying, we can never know all about God. Uh, we can only say that if we know everything about God. The truth is that though we are not God, our reason is shaped in his. We become as God when we understand that 1+1=2. Is it possible for that simple arithmetic to ever be false? In some other universe, perhaps? Or can we be confident it is true, always true, and everywhere true for any kind of reality in which intelligence apprehends? I am willing to assert it is an absolute truth anywhere and any time. Doing so makes me God-like. I insist that my reason is absolute in this matter. The same is applied to any true syllogism: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Thus, Socrates is mortal. Absolutely true. Irrefutable. I am God to say so. Thus, there is an interface between us and God which is more than just soul but includes Mind. How can we be sure of any particular limitation upon our minds when it is allied so closely with God's? The fact is, we don't know what or how much we can know about ultimate reality. We certainly don't know any limit to the depths of God's being that we may not know or comprehend. Because He is big, and we're small, it doesn't follow that we can't grow; or that God is limited in what he can do with us. That would presume, on our part, a limitation on God. Logically, we can't do it. Makes no sense. posted by Mark Butterworth | 11:10 AM | Monday, May 27, 2002 In terms I was reading Emily's blog, Fool's Folly, on Submission. It's a fine blog which I have no disagreement with, but I notice that one of her statements: "Recognizing that the depths of divine mystery will never be comprehended by our little human minds" Has an internal contradiction embedded in it. Does anybody else spot it? posted by Mark Butterworth | 8:30 PM | Sunday, May 26, 2002 A Parable? Resigned Cardinal Weakland of Milwaukee has written a parable. This link came from Amy Welborn. The problem is that the story is an allegory and not a parable; and it's a very weak and confused allegory, to boot. What makes a parable such is that it has an ending that surprises expectation. It sets up a situation in which the auditor is expecting one kind of story and resolution, but turns in such a way as to reverse the expectation in a startling manner. That's what makes Jesus' parables the most extraordinary in the world. The reason is that until Jesus invented his parables, no one understood what the kingdom of heaven was or could be. Jesus defines God's reign as one who knows certainly and clearly. They have never been equaled in prior history or in following history, because no one else has had the insight into heaven as Jesus had. Not Paul, not Peter, not John. If you go to these links, one, two, and three, you will find three new parables which are indeed parables that I have written. They come the closest as any I have ever read to Jesus' style, manner, brevity, and insight (and they still fall short, I think). Take a good look at them, though. I think they will satisfy what a good parable is. posted by Mark Butterworth | 1:45 AM | Some sad but still sunny days I have gotten a number of kind and interested responses to my Resigned blog about no longer acting as a member of the RCC. Mark Byron counsels me not to become cynical towards the church and to seek a better (or more suitable for me) worship place for my family. Hokiepundit is surprised by the abrupt manner of my resignation; and Marc at Minute Particulars offered a kind understanding and hope for my faith. I haven't been thinking too much about doing anything other than as I have been lately. I consider my wife and daughter as practicing Catholics and a good place for them. My approach is more like what is suggested in AA - take what you need and leave the rest. (This pretty much sums up everybody's actual practice, although it appalls many in principle.) I think of the church (RCC as well as others) as a place of salvation, redemption, and service (sanctification, too, but that's a different subject). The RCC has pretty much rejected every service I was good for in terms of my gifts and talents, and so I was never able to find a place of service in which my contribution really mattered so that I would remain in the church despite its problems; that God was able to use me to do so much good for others. The irony is that however strongly I desired to serve, no one else desired I should (except as their servant who would simply do as he was told. I tried that, too, but if I can't be creative and treated as a person, they might as well buy a computer or a robot). As a person of prayer, I eventually became weary of the liturgy and desired a greater simplicity of contemplation, beautiful music and art, an occasionally positive homily (rather than the ubiquitous - try harder to do better!), and some focus on the risen Jesus rather than always the crucified Jesus. I have often heard people like Amy Welborn and many others complain about touchy-feelie liturgies, but there's something profoundly sad about fellow people in Jesus who resent giving their neighbor a handshake at the kiss of peace or feel put upon if asked to hold hands during the Our Father. I'm not saying we must hold hands, but either way, to fuel resentment in yourself over touching a fellow human being - the person you're going to spend eternity with - is a bit much. Frankly, though, the "me and Jesus" routine of so many Catholics in large parishes gets to be disheartening, too. That no one really wants to know you, your family, your witness of God's grace in your life - that's a pretty sad case, too. The idea that, by receiving the Eucharist, you've gotten all you need from communion gives very short shrift to your neighbor and the possibility of communion with him. The fact is that everyone has 18 or so hours every day to commune with God, and but one hour on Sunday to commune with your neighbor - so what is it that people choose? To consider any prayer outside of church as less real, and ignore your neighbor at church - to the point that other people will not even let you make eye contact with them! Before the recent exposure of so many cover-ups of gross evil and malfeasance of property (money, inter alia), I was very sadly aware that the hierarchy was beyond accountability of any kind and that it would never be overcome. The foxes guarded the hen house. I could bear with that so long as I believed in the great good of the church, in particular its morality which was radical and flew in the face of modernity and even modern churches. Where else can you find the truth about contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and marriage? Everyone else was compromising these principles and truths. Yet, doctrinally, I was being led farther and farther away from cherished Christian doctrines and dogmas of faith. It became harder and harder to say the Creed. I found too many faults with it (and simply going to another church will not help me there). My dogma became simpler and purer as I believed God intended it to be. My sense of forgiveness and understanding towards others grew and grew; while my hostility to codes, covenants, creeds, authorities, conventions, rules, canons, the self-justifications of the church increased. Even then I thought I could remain so long as I kept my mouth shut, and made no public scandal regarding my 'heresies". But then, I'm no theologian teacher getting books published saying the Pope is all wet and Humanae Vitae is a tissue of lies, either. In life, I have found that I am able to bear all sorts of personal rejection and pains, but I do not stand by idly when I see it happen to others. The sex scandals demonstrated to me that I would never be able to stand up against evil acts against others in the church to any effect or good purpose. The corruption of the hierarchy is so entirely complete, that no man such as I may affect it. I cannot tolerate that for myself. I do not ask others to hold my position; not when they still need the architecture of a great religion to help them become more as God intends them to be. I can (at least for now) step outside of the church (in all its manifestations) because I have confidence in my faith and salvation, come what may. I don't wish to presume to be identical to Jesus as he was on earth, but I do identify with him, his rejection, and his independence of mind and spirit. I don't denigrate religion and I am not the least cynical about it. I applaud it and honor it. I simply no longer feel especially bound to it (as religio means). That will certainly strike some as premature or presumptuous, but I'm willing to see how it goes for the time being. posted by Mark Butterworth | 12:52 AM | |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
