I think if I were a bit less stubborn, I could stop posting here without guilt! lol Anyways, I think this will be pretty short tonight because I'm tired.
I'm reading through this biblically-based book by Henry Cloud and John Townsend called "Boundaries." One thing I've been learning is that we are responsible TO others and FOR ourselves. Boundaries define what is and is not me, giving me freedom to fully be myself. I cannot feel or act for others, I can only think and behave for myself.
2 Corinthians 9:7 bids us to not give to others "reluctantly or under compulsion." If you passively comply with a "should," you will resent it and not be of the right heart. I personally despise the word "should" as it implies limits set by others that we are expected to take for ourselves. We are given by God freedom to make our own boundaries and create our own lives. No matter how we feel, we have control over our choices.
A problem arises when we do not respect the boundaries of others or ourselves. We can become compliant by melting into the demands and needs of other people. We lose the ability to guard our hearts. On the other hand, aggressive controllers look for others to carry their burdens for them - they are often verbal or abusive. Manipulative controllers have the same goal in mind, but they tend to use guilt and cohersion. However, we cannot terrorize or make others feel guilty AND be loved by them at the same time. It's important to remember that while we are not responsible for others' emotions, we are responsible for how we treat them.
In summary, we are to love one another, not BE one another. I cannot feel, think, or behave for you. Setting limits and boundaries in life helps me to define who I am. Part of setting boundaries is taking responsbility for knowing what is and is not my job.
I hope some of that made sense. It's very hard to put into practice as I tend to be a combination of a compliant manipulator, but I'm working at it. Sometimes I think boundaries are important, but sometimes the rebel in me says that boundaries are meant to be pushed and stretched. But is that very respectful of others? How can I love truly if I do not love myself first by respecting myself?
Anyways, not much new is going on in my life. Still working at Borders. Sold my second Kobo e-Reader a few days ago. :) A little confused about some boundaries in my life, but nothing unmanageable. Hope you all are enjoying the last few weeks of freedom. :)
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Sav on Saturday
I'm going to try to explain a little more about the book “A History of God” this week. Last week was just crazy because I was in Wisconsin and had poor internet service and no time! But now I'm back in Michigan. In fact, my cousins from Tennessee have been visiting this week. They are going back home on Sunday. Then, my mom and I are going to a little bed and breakfast (probably in Toledo) Monday and Tuesday night to have some mother-daughter time. :) Work is going well. I love it! I'm going to miss working when school starts. I'm a little crazy in that regard! Oh, - and I just sold my first Kobo e-Reader today!!!!! (which are way better than Kindles or Nooks, just ask me why :P )
Anyways, so I'm half way through my huge book, and it's going rather slowly just because each sentence has so much information packed into it. I found the chapter on the Christian trinity to be especially fascinating. To make things short, the idea of the trinity was not original to the Christian movement. Two different camps were in conflict on whether Jesus was God by nature or divine by selection. The first went with the idea of original sin that humans need divine intervention to be saved. The second went with the more optimistic view that humans can attain divinity and perfection through obedience to God.
The Greek church solved this tension with a rather brilliant theological proposal. They made a distinction between God's essence and God's manifestations. We see God as three in one, but God's eternal essence is in unity. There is one divine self-consciousness, but when God lets humans glimpse him, he has three different faces.
In contrast with Eastern Christianity (Greek), the West has tended to take the Trinity very literally. The original purpose of the trinity was to understand how Jesus could be divine and how to describe the Holy Spirit. It was not meant to be a literal description of God, rather it was meant to help us retain a sense of the mystery and incomprehensibility surrounding God. The idea of the trinity was hard to understand on purpose! The Greek Christians believed strongly that one cannot describe God or theology, and any attempts to do so are purely symbolic and meant to instill awe in the worshippers.
In fact, throughout Christian history, people have viewed God in different lights. Some viewed God as personal, some as impersonal. Some saw God as highly involved in human life, others saw God as too high above to notice humans. Some saw God as the ground of all being, some saw God as a supernatural being himself. Some believe God can be described, many believe that to try to describe God will only cause us to create a God in our own image. Anthropomorphism is a very real threat. I love finding out that there have been many diverse views held by Christians. It is comforting to know that what one group defines as heresy, another defines as truth. There has never been a unified Christianity, nor will there ever be one.
Additionally, some (religious philosophers) believed that God could be understood and proven to exist rationally through logic exercises. Others, the mystics, believed that while logic was important, the religious experience was more central to the person's development. They saw God as quite beyond our knowledge, and thus only a transcendental kind of experience can connect us with the divine. I think a balance of both viewpoints is important. We should be able to ask questions and think logically, but we should also realize that few answers exist and that God is beyond our comprehension. I think understanding this creates a healthy tension.
Anyways, so I'm half way through my huge book, and it's going rather slowly just because each sentence has so much information packed into it. I found the chapter on the Christian trinity to be especially fascinating. To make things short, the idea of the trinity was not original to the Christian movement. Two different camps were in conflict on whether Jesus was God by nature or divine by selection. The first went with the idea of original sin that humans need divine intervention to be saved. The second went with the more optimistic view that humans can attain divinity and perfection through obedience to God.
The Greek church solved this tension with a rather brilliant theological proposal. They made a distinction between God's essence and God's manifestations. We see God as three in one, but God's eternal essence is in unity. There is one divine self-consciousness, but when God lets humans glimpse him, he has three different faces.
In contrast with Eastern Christianity (Greek), the West has tended to take the Trinity very literally. The original purpose of the trinity was to understand how Jesus could be divine and how to describe the Holy Spirit. It was not meant to be a literal description of God, rather it was meant to help us retain a sense of the mystery and incomprehensibility surrounding God. The idea of the trinity was hard to understand on purpose! The Greek Christians believed strongly that one cannot describe God or theology, and any attempts to do so are purely symbolic and meant to instill awe in the worshippers.
In fact, throughout Christian history, people have viewed God in different lights. Some viewed God as personal, some as impersonal. Some saw God as highly involved in human life, others saw God as too high above to notice humans. Some saw God as the ground of all being, some saw God as a supernatural being himself. Some believe God can be described, many believe that to try to describe God will only cause us to create a God in our own image. Anthropomorphism is a very real threat. I love finding out that there have been many diverse views held by Christians. It is comforting to know that what one group defines as heresy, another defines as truth. There has never been a unified Christianity, nor will there ever be one.
Additionally, some (religious philosophers) believed that God could be understood and proven to exist rationally through logic exercises. Others, the mystics, believed that while logic was important, the religious experience was more central to the person's development. They saw God as quite beyond our knowledge, and thus only a transcendental kind of experience can connect us with the divine. I think a balance of both viewpoints is important. We should be able to ask questions and think logically, but we should also realize that few answers exist and that God is beyond our comprehension. I think understanding this creates a healthy tension.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Sav on Saturday
This is going to be much shorter than normal because I feel silly exerting myself when no one seems to read it anyways! lol
So, I've been reading this book by Karen Armstrong called "A History of God." It follows the development of the three major monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
The historical insights provided by this book are priceless. I never read the Old Testament with such attention to the different backgrounds of the names of God and Jewish practices. I did not know that many of the Jewish practices and myths had their foundations in the pagan religions of that era. For example, it is unlikely that Abraham believed in only one God. He might have only worshipped one particular god, El Shaddai, (El of the Mountain, one of the common names for the Canaanite god) but that is not the same thing as monotheism, which is believing in only one god.
Abraham had faith in one god, which was a very pragmatic faith, a faith that brought him success, not a faith based on theological suppositions about only one God existing. This God has his beginnings as a tribal deity that murders other peoples and is brutally partial towards the Jews. Only later does he develop a compassionate front towards others.
I really could go on and on about this book, but it's almost overwhelming how much information is packed into its pages! Plus, I'm rather tired and growing somewhat delirious right now. ;)
I hope you all are doing well and enjoying this last month of summer! (I'm in Wisconsin right now, visiting my great-grandmother since I had a few days off work. Next week my cousins are coming up from Tennessee, so that should be fun.)
So, I've been reading this book by Karen Armstrong called "A History of God." It follows the development of the three major monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
The historical insights provided by this book are priceless. I never read the Old Testament with such attention to the different backgrounds of the names of God and Jewish practices. I did not know that many of the Jewish practices and myths had their foundations in the pagan religions of that era. For example, it is unlikely that Abraham believed in only one God. He might have only worshipped one particular god, El Shaddai, (El of the Mountain, one of the common names for the Canaanite god) but that is not the same thing as monotheism, which is believing in only one god.
Abraham had faith in one god, which was a very pragmatic faith, a faith that brought him success, not a faith based on theological suppositions about only one God existing. This God has his beginnings as a tribal deity that murders other peoples and is brutally partial towards the Jews. Only later does he develop a compassionate front towards others.
I really could go on and on about this book, but it's almost overwhelming how much information is packed into its pages! Plus, I'm rather tired and growing somewhat delirious right now. ;)
I hope you all are doing well and enjoying this last month of summer! (I'm in Wisconsin right now, visiting my great-grandmother since I had a few days off work. Next week my cousins are coming up from Tennessee, so that should be fun.)
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Sav on Saturday
I just finished reading a book by Elaine Pagels called “Adam, Eve, and the Serpent.” It's a highly engaging historical analysis of how the early Christians developed their views on sexuality, the creation story, the fall of man, and original sin.
Although I found the entire book to be enlightening about the fact that there has never been one “true” Christianity, a few points especially intrigued me.
For example, Augustine was the one to introduce, ie create, the idea of original sin. It had not been present in the Christian vocabulary before then. Augustine interpreted the fall of Adam as the fall of humanity. He saw death as unnatural, a punishment for Adam and Eve's sin. All of humanity is tainted by this moral decay in that sickness, hardship, and misery exist. No one is born innocent, for as Augustine asks, how could God allow the suffering of innocent infants? Augustine wielded incredible power as a theologian in his century, and his point of view neatly coincided with the acceptance of Christianity by the Roman Empire. Contrary to previous Christian views of complete moral freedom and the ability to self-govern, Augustine declared that government, ie Rome, was necessary in the light of man's corrupt nature.
Julian and Pelagius are the two theologians who were most vocal in defending the “traditional” Christian view of moral freedom. Julian read the fall of Adam as exactly that, the fall of Adam, not of humanity. He read it as a true parable about the “spiritual death” of people when they freely choose to sin and disobey God. When God said that Adam would die when he ate the fruit, it was not a physical death, for Adam did not immediately die as promised, but it was a spiritual death, for then Adam and Eve were ashamed of themselves and began a process of decay.
Julian, not a scientist but nonetheless possessing insight, saw death as natural. For when God declared that man should return to dust, it was because “you are earth” not because they sinned. Sickness and natural disasters are not a result of man's sin, for man has never held such power, but are part of nature. As such, they are not evil. Suffering is natural, but misery, which is how man deals with suffering, is a voluntary condition.
Isn't this so interesting??!! Or am I just being a complete booknerd right now? Lol Anywho, how did Augustine manage to so convince the majority of Christians to adopt the idea of original sin? The book does not presume to answer such a big question, but it proposes that Augustine's theory filled a void that existed. People of all cultures tend to experience blame and guilt for suffering, whether caused by “sin” or not, because this supports the idea of a universe governed by moral cause and effect. It gives control to humans and declares that their actions have significance in the world, whether for good or evil. Is guilt a good trade-off for this sense of control? Perhaps, since most humans are, according to Spong, affected by the trauma of self-consciousness.
Anyways, the book also addressed the debate in the early Christian world of whether virginity or marriage is better. It's rather interesting to see how our current Christian praise of virgins has developed. Whew! Ok, I'll give your brains a rest now. Lol
I just started my job at Borders on Tuesday, and I absolutely love it!! I adore shelving and pulling books, helping people find particular authors, giving recommendations, ringing up sales, etc. This is like my dream job basically! Haha Anyways, other than that, not much else has been going on that I will detail. Some relationship drama, but that's about all. Hope you all are getting ready to enjoy this last month of summer!
Although I found the entire book to be enlightening about the fact that there has never been one “true” Christianity, a few points especially intrigued me.
For example, Augustine was the one to introduce, ie create, the idea of original sin. It had not been present in the Christian vocabulary before then. Augustine interpreted the fall of Adam as the fall of humanity. He saw death as unnatural, a punishment for Adam and Eve's sin. All of humanity is tainted by this moral decay in that sickness, hardship, and misery exist. No one is born innocent, for as Augustine asks, how could God allow the suffering of innocent infants? Augustine wielded incredible power as a theologian in his century, and his point of view neatly coincided with the acceptance of Christianity by the Roman Empire. Contrary to previous Christian views of complete moral freedom and the ability to self-govern, Augustine declared that government, ie Rome, was necessary in the light of man's corrupt nature.
Julian and Pelagius are the two theologians who were most vocal in defending the “traditional” Christian view of moral freedom. Julian read the fall of Adam as exactly that, the fall of Adam, not of humanity. He read it as a true parable about the “spiritual death” of people when they freely choose to sin and disobey God. When God said that Adam would die when he ate the fruit, it was not a physical death, for Adam did not immediately die as promised, but it was a spiritual death, for then Adam and Eve were ashamed of themselves and began a process of decay.
Julian, not a scientist but nonetheless possessing insight, saw death as natural. For when God declared that man should return to dust, it was because “you are earth” not because they sinned. Sickness and natural disasters are not a result of man's sin, for man has never held such power, but are part of nature. As such, they are not evil. Suffering is natural, but misery, which is how man deals with suffering, is a voluntary condition.
Isn't this so interesting??!! Or am I just being a complete booknerd right now? Lol Anywho, how did Augustine manage to so convince the majority of Christians to adopt the idea of original sin? The book does not presume to answer such a big question, but it proposes that Augustine's theory filled a void that existed. People of all cultures tend to experience blame and guilt for suffering, whether caused by “sin” or not, because this supports the idea of a universe governed by moral cause and effect. It gives control to humans and declares that their actions have significance in the world, whether for good or evil. Is guilt a good trade-off for this sense of control? Perhaps, since most humans are, according to Spong, affected by the trauma of self-consciousness.
Anyways, the book also addressed the debate in the early Christian world of whether virginity or marriage is better. It's rather interesting to see how our current Christian praise of virgins has developed. Whew! Ok, I'll give your brains a rest now. Lol
I just started my job at Borders on Tuesday, and I absolutely love it!! I adore shelving and pulling books, helping people find particular authors, giving recommendations, ringing up sales, etc. This is like my dream job basically! Haha Anyways, other than that, not much else has been going on that I will detail. Some relationship drama, but that's about all. Hope you all are getting ready to enjoy this last month of summer!
Monday, July 26, 2010
Myrica Monday
hey girls...
gah, i can't believe I've gone so long without posting! I'm really really sorry about that. I want to say though, that I have been reading all of your posts, and I really appreciate hearing your thoughts and how you're all doing every time I get online (which tends to be every 3 or 4 days).
So what's up with me, you may be wondering? Well, honestly, half the time I'm not sure. Over the past couple weeks I've become really negligent about reading my bible, to tell you the truth, and that's had a lot to do with why I've been avoiding posting. But just because I haven't been regularly reading the Word doesn't mean I've stopped working on my relationship with God, I don't think. I feel like at least once everyday (and oftentimes more than once a day) I see something here, in nature, whether I'm out in the field with a class or just wandering around on my own, that just puts me in complete awe of His creation. I mean, really. I've known for a while that this connection I feel between God and the natural world is a very large part of why I'm in the major I'm in, but I'm reminded of it more than ever, the longer I spend at the biostation. I think these moments of awe are gentle reminders from God, because there have definitely been times this summer when I mentally kick myself for taking classes (who wants to be in school when you could be at the beach with friends?) or for choosing the classes that I did, because I think they're pretty hard. So, me enjoying the beauty of God's creation is His way of reminding me why I'm supposed to be studying this - to help conserve and protect God's creation.
Oh, also, I just finished reading a book for my lit class called "Refuge" by Terry Tempest Williams. I'm not going to lie, it was a terribly book. It's the true story of TTW's mom dying of cancer, being Mormon, and TTW's connection to nature. I cried during a lot of it, but it was fantastic. I think that part of the reason I connected with it so much was that it was a really exaggerated explanation of how I feel toward nature. Yeah, if you're interested in that kind of thing, you should check it out. :)
Okay, well I have to go finish writing a paper for tomorrow (ah! too much schoolwork!), so I'm gonna go do that...I hope you're all doing well! I love and miss all of you, and I really will try to post again next week, so that I'm back on a regular schedule.
Ok, bye!!! <3 <3 <3
gah, i can't believe I've gone so long without posting! I'm really really sorry about that. I want to say though, that I have been reading all of your posts, and I really appreciate hearing your thoughts and how you're all doing every time I get online (which tends to be every 3 or 4 days).
So what's up with me, you may be wondering? Well, honestly, half the time I'm not sure. Over the past couple weeks I've become really negligent about reading my bible, to tell you the truth, and that's had a lot to do with why I've been avoiding posting. But just because I haven't been regularly reading the Word doesn't mean I've stopped working on my relationship with God, I don't think. I feel like at least once everyday (and oftentimes more than once a day) I see something here, in nature, whether I'm out in the field with a class or just wandering around on my own, that just puts me in complete awe of His creation. I mean, really. I've known for a while that this connection I feel between God and the natural world is a very large part of why I'm in the major I'm in, but I'm reminded of it more than ever, the longer I spend at the biostation. I think these moments of awe are gentle reminders from God, because there have definitely been times this summer when I mentally kick myself for taking classes (who wants to be in school when you could be at the beach with friends?) or for choosing the classes that I did, because I think they're pretty hard. So, me enjoying the beauty of God's creation is His way of reminding me why I'm supposed to be studying this - to help conserve and protect God's creation.
Oh, also, I just finished reading a book for my lit class called "Refuge" by Terry Tempest Williams. I'm not going to lie, it was a terribly book. It's the true story of TTW's mom dying of cancer, being Mormon, and TTW's connection to nature. I cried during a lot of it, but it was fantastic. I think that part of the reason I connected with it so much was that it was a really exaggerated explanation of how I feel toward nature. Yeah, if you're interested in that kind of thing, you should check it out. :)
Okay, well I have to go finish writing a paper for tomorrow (ah! too much schoolwork!), so I'm gonna go do that...I hope you're all doing well! I love and miss all of you, and I really will try to post again next week, so that I'm back on a regular schedule.
Ok, bye!!! <3 <3 <3
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Sav on Saturday
Alright, when I say that this post will be short, I actually mean it this time! lol
I don't have a lot new to add to my discussion from last week (I covered a lot between the post and my comment on it). Suffice to say that I'm questioning the value of reading the Bible literally. I do not believe the Gospels were necessarily meant to convey historical truths as much as they were meant to convey the mysteries of the God-experience the early Christians found in Jesus. (Read "Jesus for the Non-Religious" by John Shelby Spong for information about how the Gospels follow liturgical patterns).
Additionally, the earliest texts on the resurrection were from Paul, and they never specifically identify the resurrection as a physical, earthly one. In fact, they leave out many details about the crucifixion and "betrayal" that the Gospels, written many years later, gradually add. The resurrection, some scholars believe, was originally a spiritual one to explain how the Christ-experience didn't die with Christ. Mark, the first Gospel written, does not have any witnesses to the resurrection. The last few verses in that Gospel that identify the resurrection story are only included in later texts. As well, the Gospels do not agree on the details about the resurrection. There are many contradictions. Why is it so necessary for us to believe that Christ had a physical resurrection? I don't think it is. Early Christians were trying to avoid the sticky question of how the Christ could die. But if you see the crucifixion as a symbol of God's love, then a spiritual resurrection is perfectly adequate.
Am I making any sense at all? I feel like I'm babbling with my thoughts randomly spitting out. That's how I think sometimes. Oh - another thing. A lot of scholars believe that the "miracles" of the New Testament were actually how the early Jews tried to explain how they experienced God through Jesus. Most of the miracles and other prophesy-fulfilling details are not historically accurate, necessarily, but are the Jewish Christians' way of attributing to Jesus the signs of the Christ Messiah. They were symbolic liturgies developed, as some scholars postulate, to help the early Christians process the life and experience of Jesus.
Anywho, as for me, I start my Borders job on Tuesday. I signed a contract with the Truth Co-op (on Washtenaw) this Thursday, so I will be living on campus next year. Other than that, I've just been reading and cultivating relationships. :)
I don't have a lot new to add to my discussion from last week (I covered a lot between the post and my comment on it). Suffice to say that I'm questioning the value of reading the Bible literally. I do not believe the Gospels were necessarily meant to convey historical truths as much as they were meant to convey the mysteries of the God-experience the early Christians found in Jesus. (Read "Jesus for the Non-Religious" by John Shelby Spong for information about how the Gospels follow liturgical patterns).
Additionally, the earliest texts on the resurrection were from Paul, and they never specifically identify the resurrection as a physical, earthly one. In fact, they leave out many details about the crucifixion and "betrayal" that the Gospels, written many years later, gradually add. The resurrection, some scholars believe, was originally a spiritual one to explain how the Christ-experience didn't die with Christ. Mark, the first Gospel written, does not have any witnesses to the resurrection. The last few verses in that Gospel that identify the resurrection story are only included in later texts. As well, the Gospels do not agree on the details about the resurrection. There are many contradictions. Why is it so necessary for us to believe that Christ had a physical resurrection? I don't think it is. Early Christians were trying to avoid the sticky question of how the Christ could die. But if you see the crucifixion as a symbol of God's love, then a spiritual resurrection is perfectly adequate.
Am I making any sense at all? I feel like I'm babbling with my thoughts randomly spitting out. That's how I think sometimes. Oh - another thing. A lot of scholars believe that the "miracles" of the New Testament were actually how the early Jews tried to explain how they experienced God through Jesus. Most of the miracles and other prophesy-fulfilling details are not historically accurate, necessarily, but are the Jewish Christians' way of attributing to Jesus the signs of the Christ Messiah. They were symbolic liturgies developed, as some scholars postulate, to help the early Christians process the life and experience of Jesus.
Anywho, as for me, I start my Borders job on Tuesday. I signed a contract with the Truth Co-op (on Washtenaw) this Thursday, so I will be living on campus next year. Other than that, I've just been reading and cultivating relationships. :)
Friday, July 23, 2010
:)
hi everyone.....so i've obviously been neglecting this...but since i've posted last i visited dalbert and i loved it. it was sooo good to see him. speedway has been there..hahaha but i will miss some of this people i work with..ok tops three people haha. But in terms spiritually, i haven't really been reading my bible but i still continue to go to my home church. but God has been SO good lately. he has really calmed my spirit as i learn to trust him more..haha took me long enough....he has calmed me about my future and finances with school. I was really worried because I didn't get this scholarship again because my mom doesn't live in kent county anymore so i was really upset. But he has really come through and i think i may have to pay less this year than i had to last year. I also heard this really good sermon at church on sunday. At first I didn't want to go to church because I thought it would be super boring and i would fall asleep. But it was about never giving up on God, the miracles you have been praying for could be right around the corner but you have given up. Like the prayers will never come true if YOU give up. I hope im explaining this well because i really liked it. I have been praying for a long time for family members to be saved and it gave me more motivation. i have been reading 1 Corinthians and trying to find so answers to many questions i have about living in christ...like about relationships with people, etc. but i definitely need to pray on it because some things i just dont understand...hahaha
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
