The Bible is a Library

 The bible is a library, and the librarian has a strong bias as to which books to put on the library shelves. It is not one book, but a collection of books. It clearly has more than one author, with some of the book's authors named in some fashion. Not everything in the bible are books. Some of the documents are letters from different writers. In the end, it is a set of written documents collected between two covers. In essence, like a library (which is a collection of documents contained within a structure), the bible is a collection housed in a binding we call the 'holy bible'.

I mentioned a librarian. In the early days, there were a number of different libraries. However, in the year 397, one librarian, with the help of that librarian's board of directors, tore down any other library so their own library would be the only one people could come to. I've always said there are two ways to climb the ladder of success. One method is to employ strength and endurance to lift oneself up each rung until reaching the top. The other method is to pull others off their ladders so you look higher up than anyone else. It seems, with all the talk of heresy and such, the "catholic" church employed the second method. While Athanasius' Festal Letter 39 defined the list of 27 acceptable books for inclusion in the canon (read: library), it took a couple councils to affirm that list. (see: the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Third Council of Carthage in 397.) 

Athanasius' list appears to be based on four general criteria.

• Apostolic authorship
• Widespread usage
• Theological consistency
• Unity with Hebrew scriptures

Let's take a look at each of them. Like many early Christian leaders, Athanasius likely considered apostolic authorship or association as an important criterion for inclusion in the canon. Books believed to have been written by apostles or those closely associated with them were highly regarded and considered authoritative. This criterion would have favored the inclusion of the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and the letters of the apostles, such as Paul, Peter, and John. It would have ignored many documents which were not making claims of apostolic authors.

It is reasonable to believe that the apostles were relatively uneducated fishermen and similar locals who lived near Jesus. To claim they became educated authors in Greek is a bit of a stretch. It is far more reasonable to assume learned people took the stories and teachings handed down to them and wrote them decades later.

"Widespread usage" needs some definition. This is widespread as defined by the librarian. A document that has widespread usage in Jerusalem may not have widespread usage in Alexandria. Athanasius was a Bishop in Egypt. While it would be reasonable that Athanasius communicated with other bishops in the roman imperial provinces of the fourth century, that interaction would be limited to similar thinking churches.

Based on the books included versus excluded, it is clear that Athanasius had a theological assumption integrated into his choices. He clearly favored Pauline theology over the teachings of James. He was strongly against anything that hinted at a pro-Arian stance. (This is reasonable considering he was exiled from his bishopric multiple times for defying Arian theology.)

By "theological consistency", it is meant that Athanasius ignored any teaching or book that did not conform to the theological story Athanasius wanted to present. The bible is not a compendium of the variations of belief seen throughout the world. Instead, it is a single view held by a collection of groups. Unfortunately, I see the subjectivity of view to be a weakness and not a strength. Considering the variety of ways people professed their faith in the newly forming religion, to say one perspective is right and all others are wrong makes it too likely that the professed perspective is not a complete and whole understanding.

Early Christian communities recognized the continuity and connection between the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the emerging Christian writings. The books that maintained a connection to the Hebrew Scriptures and demonstrated a fulfillment of the Jewish prophetic tradition were more likely to be included. This criterion would have influenced the inclusion of the Gospels and Acts, as they presented Jesus as the fulfillment of the Jewish messianic prophecies.

So, if these criteria are not met, then Athanasius did not include the writing into his "library". Was Athanasius biased? Well, he was exiled from his position on more than one occasion for having a viewpoint that did not conform to the general beliefs of the time and place. His nicname "Athanasius contra mundum," suggests he was more on his own than a representative of the general understanding held by people of the time.

So, in the end, the bible is really a library of books assembled by Athanasius as his personal viewpoint which stood in direct conflict with the general understanding of the christian theology of its day. It is intriguing that today, it is considered the inerrant word of God. How did one person's offshoot viewpoint become the only acceptable view?

Oral vs Written Tradition - A comparison

 We are told that before the written word, knowledge was maintained using an oral tradition. The emphasis we are being persuaded to believe is that before the written word, there were oral historians who carefully remembered and transmitted that knowledge to the next generation flawlessly. Was the oral tradition better than the written system we have today?  Let's compare them.

Starting with the written history.  (Yes, it came later, but it is the one we know best.) For starters, there are problems with written history. The first one to come to mind is that living languages evolve. At the time a piece of history is written, it is typically written in a living language. That means that the written words evolve from the time they are created. Written history suffers another issue: translation. When the written word is translated to another living language, the meaning is modified because the two languages may have different meanings for the translated word. Lastly, the written word presumes the reader is not able to receive any further clarification than what is written, because the text does not offer the ability to clarify any questions the reader may have. If the written word doesn't address future questions, then it doesn't have the ability to respond or clarify the future reader's questions.

Which is a major strength of the oral tradition method of conveying history. If the listener (receiver) has a question, the authoritative person can clarify the message. The other side of this positive is that the person conveying the history, when asked questions that are not directly covered by what they were taught will need to provide their own interpretation to answer the question.

There is an assumption by modern people that the oral tradition was carefully taught and repeated so that nothing would change. That would require a certain level of skill in each person to stay faithful to what the person before them transmitted. Their ego would have to be removed entirely from material being transmitted. Such an ability is a learned skill which is not completely learned by anyone. It certainly would not be a skill of an ordinary person (which explains why there were "professional" story tellers in pre-literate societies.)

In the end, unless the person writing the history is present at the event and is writing then and there (such as a court stenographer), there is some degree of oral tradition in every written document. This is even more true if the writer is not a direct witness. It would seem to me that neither written or oral history is free of issues.

Now, consider the Christian Bible. The earliest known documents are presumed to be written decades after the event by someone who wasn't present for them. The written copies we have are copies of copies, involving translations.

In general, the people who witnessed the acts and words of Jesus were not professional historians. The people they told their experiences to were not trained to present the material with clarity or accuracy. Instead, it was a group of individuals independently telling their friends and people they met the exciting things they recalled (however accurately). Those people then passed the exciting parts of what they heard on to others. (Why talk about the boring stuff...  So, already we have some warping of the overall picture.) Since each person perceives what they do based on the filters they have developed, and interprets what they see based on how they filter the information that comes to them, the stories morph into things that no longer capture the whole message, but rather the various transmitter's perception of what was the exciting or newsworthy elements of the original story. Once it gets translated into other languages, more meaning is lost due to the impact of different languages not having a direct one-to-one relationship between words. Write it down in a living language and now the language departs from the original meaning to wherever the language takes it.

For example: does the word "virgin" mean "never had sex"? Can a person have anal sex and still be a virgin? Is it possible to have sex outside of marriage? Now imagine if a culture had a taboo about sex before marriage, does that mean nobody has sex before marriage? Is a taboo behavior something everyone stays away from? Now then, what if the word "virgin" simply means "a young woman before marriage." Yes, tradition and taboo suggest the virgin has never had sex, since doing so would be breaking a taboo or tradition. But can that always be true? If the word simply means young (pre-marriage), does that mean we can substitute the meaning of "young" with "never had sex"?

When we apply this idea to Mary, it is more complicated. She was betrothed when she got pregnant. Betrothal in ancient Jewish culture was a legally binding commitment preceding marriage. It involved a period of waiting and preparation before the actual marriage ceremony took place. During this period, they would often undergo various rites, rituals, and preparations, such as completing the necessary legal requirements, assembling a dowry or bride price, and making arrangements for the wedding ceremony. As a virgin, we can assume she was young. But if she is already that committed to Joseph, can we be certain she didn't have sex with Joseph? If you say you can be certain because the Bible says she was a virgin, then I would agree, she was young... period. The extra words added in were added during the oral tradition that took place over the decades.  Remember, none of the apostles (assuming they even wrote the gospels attributed to their names) were present during the nine months prior to the birth of Jesus. ... And before the death of Jesus, would his mother, Mary, admit to being sexually promiscuous prior to her marriage? (Hi... I committed taboo activities...) Even if she did, would the people relating the stories of Jesus want to say she had performed taboos that resulted in the birth of their messiah?

If I told you a story and you passed it on to another person (remember, most of the people passing stories of Jesus were not trained professional oral-tradition story tellers), would you mention the boring stuff? If you really loved me and thought I was the greatest person, would you want others to know of my faults and failures? Would you gloss over my faults to highlight the reasons you think I'm great?

I'm not sure either process, written or oral, for transmitting knowledge, is better than the other. Combine them and the quality of the story degrades significantly. It makes me wonder how well my ideas will survive the future.

Our view dictates our reaction and behaviors

 I've been reading a book titled "Power vs Force" by David R. Hawkins. The book is about applying kinesiology to consciousness. Some of the ideas presented in the book got me thinking about something I've always known: our filters dictate our responses. This book confirmed it for me and expanded on my thoughts further. It also went off in directions that didn't matter as much to me.

But, for the part that did get me thinking, I've been drawn back to it time and time again these last few weeks. As individuals, we grow up with a set of experiences and attitudes that shape how we feel about the world/god/cosmos. That, in turn, is our filter we use when we experience things. For example, if we hold a world view that everything is vindictive/evil, we are more likely to use blame to avoid punishments we assume will follow. On the other hand, if we perceive the world as wise and meaningful, we will instead look at the same event and search for the meaning behind it. The event is the same. Our reaction differs based on our basic world view.

I was listening to a person tell me how she sees herself as a vile monster, unworthy of kindness or experiencing nice things. When she sees something nice/kind, she feels that either someone screwed up and accidentally let her see it or it is the thin wrapping of a greater horror. Her response to hearing positive things said about her is to reject both the message and messenger. Since she doesn't feel she is entitled to kindness, any kindness directed at her reminds her that it wasn't intended for her. My heart and soul goes out to her, yet I cannot think of a way to get my message of love and compassion across.

I have also been listening to people lately with an ear for their emotional reaction or the thought process they seem to use. One intriguing awareness I'm discovering is that people repeat their thought patterns regularly over multiple sessions. In other words, while a given response may differ, the typical response a given person will give to any topic will be based on the same world view/filter.

So, if we can change a person's view, can we change their reaction? That's an easy yes.  How about, if we get people to force themselves to change their reaction, would it help them change their world view/filter? I bring this up because I've been told to "fake it until you make it." Can faking it (forcing oneself to respond at a different level) bring about a change in one's perspective on life?

Recall at the start of this, I noticed people respond to the same event in different ways. Those ways are based on the filters they employ which are based on the world view they perceive. So, can we change our understanding of the world by changing how we choose to react?

The 17 categories in the book are split between one neutral viewpoint and eight viewpoints that are either inwardly focused or outwardly focused. The bottom eight (inward) are various behaviors designed to avoid pain and suffering of oneself. These include things like shame, guilt, apathy, fear, anger and pride. The object of the emotion is oneself. (I'm ashamed, or I'm afraid.) Whereas the eight outwardly focus emotions tend to be focused on others: trust, acceptance, understanding, love, peace. The book also orders them from self removal on the internal side (shame and humiliation leading to elimination of oneself) through a series of "I exist, but ignore me", to "pay attention to me", and on to acceptance of others followed by forgiveness then understanding to love. And the levels of consciousness tops out at the complete removal of the concept of self (pure consciousness and enlightenment.)

So, if there are sequential levels, perhaps we can help people by changing their filters and reaction. If regret is higher up the ladder than blame, then getting someone to stop blaming other and simply regret that things are the way they are... is that some improvement? Can we make steps in the right direction without expecting someone to jump many levels at once?

Is it our right/responsibility to make those changes? Is being comfortable in one's skin good enough? What does it mean to love someone? Is helping them out of a morass that they feel comfortable and familiar with helping? Is ignorance bliss?

I think Christians got it wrong.

 After Jesus died, the apostles, and close disciples met and prayed together for many days. It's pretty clear that they struggled with the idea that their messiah was killed. It is reasonable for them to ask themselves what significance was the death of Jesus. Why did Jesus die? Why did Jesus have to die? In other words, how can we justify the death of Jesus with Jesus being the messiah to free the Jews from the yoke which held them down? If Jesus was not a true messiah, then why were we hoodwinked into following him all this time?

Not wanting to look like fools, it is reasonable for the apostles to mold testament stories to justify them and their actions. The stories they found in the prophet Joel or the words of David could have represented anything. But by applying it to their situation, the would feel vindicated for their choices.

All they had to do was apply old stories to their present situation, without regard to if they are related. This way, they could validate themselves and their time with Jesus.

How can I determine this? Why could they not have been right and I be misguided? Well, I may likely be misguided. However, me being misguided does not clear the apostles from their questioned stance. Let's look at what they did with their "justification". Take Peter's second sermon as an example. Yes, it is prophesied that God's chosen one would suffer. The Jewish people, in general, were suffering under the yoke of the Romans. The various Jews living during the captivity of them by Assyrians, Babylonians, and others suffered too. How is it that the prophesies applied to Jesus and not any of the other Jews who suffered?

At some point, someone decided that the death of Jesus is what pays for our sins. It is the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross with frees us and grants us the salvation of life eternal with God. And with that, we jumped ship, losing the message of Jesus.

You see, someone forgot to mention that in the earliest of books about God, God created mankind by taking clay (physical stuff from this world) and breathed life (a bit of the immaterial and eternal world... heaven) into each person. That means, we already have something outside the physical dimensions of space and time (call it a soul if you wish). So, unless the death of our physical body also kills the immaterial part of us (that is outside of the physical realm of time), we are already immortal. We don't have to buy our immortality as we already have it.

We don't have to pay for it either. We don't need someone else to die for that payment. Looking at the lessons Jesus taught us in Luke to give with no expectation of return. The justification is that we should behave like God who gives to all, including sinners and the unworthy. If God gives to all without expectation of anything in return, they why must Jesus have to pay for our sins with his life?

Wouldn't this all work more in line with the message of God as taught by Jesus if we simply are given the gifts of God without Jesus paying for it with his life? Humans were already given God's breath of life from the heavens. Why can we not simply say Jesus was killed because there are people in this world who are attached to their selfish egos and possessions. They had Jesus killed because Jesus taught God's message of love unconditionally. The fact Jesus was killed doesn't diminish the message. It simply points out that there are still people who refuse to listen and live by the will of God.

We cannot change others. We can change ourselves. Let others live their lives and we will do what we can to love everyone unconditionally, to encourage diversity with all the beauty that comes from it, and to be a humble servant, helping everyone without prejudice or favoritism.

The message Jesus taught is the focus of our faith, not the results of the actions of selfish people.

Teachings of Paul

Why are none of the letters of Paul in this version of the bible? Perhaps it is because of the difficulty I face with Paul and his message.

It is clear to me that a key message of Jesus is to be humble. This message shows up time and time again. Jesus washes the feet. Jesus teaches us that whoever is first will be last. Jesus takes the role as a helper. If this is a key message of Jesus, I would expect his followers to try to exemplify the teachings of Jesus.

Yet, when I read Paul’s letters, it seems to me that Paul never got the message.  Not surprisingly. Paul never lived with Jesus nor saw Jesus in day-to-day behaviors. Paul only knows Jesus from one short vision Paul had on the road. The rest of what Paul knows about Jesus is what others told him. It appears that Paul’s vision changed Paul from being a hunter of Christians to presenting himself with the label of Christian. Paul’s ego, however, never wavered.

Consider the following examples. Paul writes “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 11:1) He doesn’t tell people to be imitators of Jesus. No, he has to pull the focus to himself. Does he understand Jesus’ message of humility? Nope, he goes all in: (Galatians 2:20) “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.” Paul draws the focus to himself in the guise of telling others that when you see him (Paul), you are seeing Jesus. This is a level of ego mania I don’t see in Jesus.

I suppose I would be fine looking past the ego of the individual if the message was compatible. Jesus taught his followers and disciples to comply with what is commanded from the scribes and Pharisees who sit in the chair of Moses. However, Jesus went further to say “Do as they say, not as they do.” Jesus described the leaders as preaching what they themselves do not practice. Jesus taught his followers to treat one another as equals, with nobody better, higher, or more authoritative. “But as for you, do not be called Teacher; for only God is your Teacher, and you are all brothers and sisters.” (Matthew 23:8). How does Paul handle this topic? Well, if you believe Paul wrote first Timothy, “I was appointed as a preacher and an apostle -I am telling the truth, I am not lying-, as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.” (1 Timothy 2:7) This would mean that Paul is claiming to be God. So much for humility…again.

Love unconditionally. That is a foundational message of Jesus. Turn the other cheek. Love your enemy. Help those who oppose you. On and on, Jesus tells us to not be judgmental. Yes, Paul writes that if someone says anything that does not agree with Paul’s words, Paul invokes God that they be under God’s curse. (Galacians 1:8)

Love unconditionally includes not being racist or sexist. Jesus never taught sexism. While the gospels seem to be thin on Jesus’ interactions with women, every story shows Jesus treating them equally. Jesus talks about his “brothers and sisters” not just his brothers. Paul is not so considerate. 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is pretty harsh with many “I want…” and “I do not allow…”. Paul demands women be seen and not heard… with entire submissiveness.

Then there is the discrepancy between who goes to heaven. Jesus says only the people who do the will of God will enter heaven. (Matthew 7:21) Paul pronounces that faith alone will save you. (see Romans 10:13, Ephesians 2:8)

God’s mercy? Jesus tells us God will judge us on how we judge others. How we treat others is how God will treat us. “Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy. (Matthew 5:7) Paul, on the other hand, teaches that God will do as God pleases, and mercy, from the perspective of a human is at best random.

What I conclude from my side-by-side comparison of Jesus and Paul, they are not the same. Jesus, for the most part, practices what he preaches. Paul contradicts Jesus and tries to draw focus on Paul himself.  Why are none of the letters of Paul in this version of the bible? Perhaps it is because of the difficulty I face with Paul and his message.

Is COD deism?

I've been told I am simply a deist, someone who believes God exists, but beyond creating this world has no involvement in it. I disagree. I've been told God is involved in every aspect of every person and thing in this world at all times. I disagree. I may be wrong. Instead, I think there is a middle ground where God is most likely to be found.

Once again, it is not possible for me to know the details of God beyond what I have observed and been told. Once again, I'm going to try anyway.

I like the analogy of a child playing with a toy. Without reading too much into the concept of play or toy, the analogy has some merit.  People play with their toys in different ways depending on their goals and objectives. How they play with them says something about the person.

Imagine a collection of toys. Imagine some person made all of those toys. 

• The first toy is a stuffed animal. Imagine once the stuffed animal it made, it was tossed in a toy box and ignored from that day on. 
• Another toy is made. It is a wooden car with wheels that spin. The toy is then allowed to roll down a ramp or hill on its own as the person watches it from the starting point. 
• Now, imagine the next toy made is a doll. It also gets tossed in the toy box, but every now and then gets pulled out and played with. This toy is held in different poses and made to move in ways the person wants the toy to move in.
• Next is a ball.  The person plays with the ball by making it spin on the tip of his finger like a basketball player may do with a basketball. The person watches it carefully, observing the speed of the spin, any wobble that may happen, and anything else that might make the ball fall off their finger. On occasions, the person interacts with the spinning ball by brushing their other hand against it to add more energy to the spin to keep it going.
• Finally, a watch. The person pays attention to every gear and every dial to ensure everything is working perfectly. If a speck of dust falls on a dial, the person removes it. If a gear needs grease, the person is ready with some grease to fix the issue. Nothing escapes the ever vigilant eye of the watch maker.

The "stuffed animal" god is what I call a deist. Many christians think of god as the watch maker. My suspicion is God falls into the basketball category. God is ever vigilant on all the details, but performs actions that move the whole to the desired outcome by specific actions that impact other elements which in turn accomplishes the bigger picture. God doesn't run around doing many different tasks for individuals and their personal needs. Those needs factor into the bigger picture and may, as a element of a greater whole, be addressed using a broader stroke. The difference between the basketball and the watch is the degree of response to individual needs independent of the bigger picture.

The added spin God gives the basketball seems to be reasonably consistent. Whenever this world needs attention, the solution is for God to remind us to love one another. The message has been with teachers and prophets telling us to do so or, in some cases, risk something bad happening. Sometimes it has been to show us how beneficial loving one another is for us. Sometimes, we get a gentle spanking or scolding to remind us to change our ways. But the message seems to be consistently the same: love unconditionally.

It is one message, spoken different ways at different times to accomplish one goal. We do this by showing God we are grateful for the creation by treating it as God wants us to treat it: with love.

What does God want?

 What do we know about God?

We’ve been told there is only one god. We’ve been taught that God is a loving, personal god who listens to our prayers. We’ve described God as all powerful, all present, and all knowing. I suspect this is not the correct description of God.

Ask, and you shall receive. God is listening and answers our prayers. As a child, I asked for a million dollars. I guess I should have included “right now” in my request. In a similar vein, I know others have asked to stop their suffering and their prayers seem to be answered with equal frequency. When prayers appear to go unanswered, the proposed rationale is that God works in mysterious ways. Is God really listening? Does he answer our prayers or is the frequency of our prayers being answered closer to random chance?

Perhaps we should start with what we know about God. God created the intangible and the tangible (heaven and earth). God created light and shadows. God created land and water. God, we can say, created diversity and a spectrum of degrees between the two extremes.

God spoke to Adam and Eve. God spoke to Abraham and Moses. God did not speak to the rest of the Hebrews. It appears that God picks a person or perhaps a small handful of people at any given point in time and has that person pass along God’s message. What this tells me about God is God wants us to know something at various points in time. Since God has a messenger to spread God’s message instead of simply telling everyone all at once makes me suspect God lacks the ability to talk to everyone all at once.

Using Occam’s Razor as a guide, God does not get involved with the minutiae of the creation but has a continued interest in the creation itself. As the whole of creation is constantly changing, the more reasonable explanation for God’s continued interest is to watch the evolution of the creation. God’s occasional interaction suggests God wants something and interaction is needed to achieve that something.

Let me jump out on a limb here and suggest God wants to see how the creation will evolve and change over what we perceive as time. For the creation to collapse and end would be counter to God’s will. This would explain how various people over time have presented a message from God and why I didn’t get a million dollars as a child. God’s involvement with the creation is similar to a person spinning a ball on the tip of their finger.  Once it is spinning, it will remain spinning for some time.  Occasionally, the person needs to add a bit of energy to the spinning ball by brushing their other hand against the ball. Perhaps God needs to be slightly involved to have the creation in general do what God wants from it.

So, then, what does God want? Why does God need to talk to various people over the history of mankind? What does God need from us? If God’s goal is to keep the creation going and humans can have a huge impact on this planet, perhaps God talks to us to have us keep this planet alive and productive. Again, the answer may be hidden in what God has told Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, the Dalai Lama, and others. The message is fairly consistent: Love unconditionally. The way it is presented may change and the choice of words may differ, but the underlying message is consistent. God needs us to stop discriminating against one another, to stop hurting one another, and to instead love, care, and support one another. PERIOD. FULL STOP.

Why does God need us to love unconditionally? I haven’t a clue.