Continual surrender
Worldly responsibility
Private disciplines
Joy in Loving
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Covenant
Today on the ferry ride from edmonds I looked backwards.
Usually I prefer the front, full steam ahead, wind in my face, but for no particular reason I chose the back today, sitting in the covered area eating some cereal, looking at where I'd come from.
On my way to my car, parked near the back, I stopped to stretch near the mildly churning water, and I saw the most perfect rainbow, arcing from left to right with both ends in the water, like an archway the ferry had passed under. And I remembered God's covenant.
And I imagined him saying, 'never again will I flood your life with so much destruction.'
Islam - the conversation I have always wanted to see
A good friend of mine from Div School takes on good old-fashioned religious intolerance in the Islamic setting - with a conservative, though not extremist Muslim, in a conversation on Facebook. Who knew that postmodern contextualization could be just as effectively wielded in the Bedouin desert?
Zach Warren commented on Basheer Ghafoor's status.
Basheer Ghafoor
99. If it had been your Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! will you then compel mankind, against their will, to believe? 100.No soul can believe, except by the will of Allah, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand.
13 hours ago
Dawood Banday likes this.
Zach Warren
indeed, he admonished, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256)
And also warned us to consider and appreciate the personal diversity of belief : “Say: O you who disbelieve, I worship not that which you worship, nor will you worship that which I worship, and I will not worship that which you have worshipped, and you will not worship that which I worship, to you is your path (religion) and to me is mine.” (Qur’an 109:1-6).
Tuesday at 6:30am
Dawood Banday
@zach, the above verse doesn't indicate freedom of diversity of belief, rather it is rebuking disbelievers that muslims don't believe what ever you believe....thus, it says, Unto you your religion and unto me my religion.
Wednesday at 8:10am
Basheer Ghafoor
Yes.
Zach-- I'm not sure where you got that idea from. But how can God tell us to consider and appreciate more than one religion? There is only one true religion. The rest of them are just lies made against Allah (May He be Glorified and Exalted).
Verse: “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:85].
Here is a tafseer of surat Al- Kafiroon, http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=109&tid=59385.
Please study the suras from reliable sources... lest you would be making up lies against Islam.
Wednesday at 8:29am
Zach Warren
A chapter of the Qur’an entitled The Unbelievers, referring to those who reject the message of monotheism preached by Prophet Muhammad, stresses that belief is a matter of personal conviction and that difference in faith should not be the cause for persecution or abuse
Wednesday at 8:54am
Zach Warren
The Qur’an’s endorsement of religiously and culturally plural societies and the recognition of the salvific value of other monotheistic religions has greatly affected the treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim lands. If you're interested to learn more, I can recommend some Muslim historical texts, written by believers. Through the centuries, various Muslim societies have attempted to implement these pluralist ideals with varying degrees of success. It is also clear, however, that other Muslim societies, at certain historical times and in certain contexts, have chosen to ignore these pluralist ideals or to cast them aside. In their place, discourses of exclusivism and intolerance became prevalent. The most significant of these can be traced back to the eighth and ninth centuries when Islam became a religion of empire and attempts were made to bestow theological legitimacy to the growth of Arab imperial hegemony. Within this context, certain segments of the Muslim political and religious establishments promoted anti-pluralist - that is, exclusivist - readings and interpretations of the Qur’an, primarily to advance hegemonic goals. For this purpose, as Abdulaziz Sachedina has written (Abdulaziz Sachedina, The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism (Oxford University Press, 2001, see p 29), several Muslim exegetes devised terminological and methodological strategies to mold the exegesis of the sacred text so as to provide a convincing prop for absolutist ends.
In other words, in your words -- lies. The principal means by which the exclusivists were able to promote their view was through the declaration that the many verses calling for pluralism, commanding Muslims to build bridges of understanding with non-Muslims, had been abrogated by other vers es that call for fighting the infidel. The verses in question were revealed in the context of armed conflicts between a small, beleaguered Muslim community and its powerful Christian, Jewish and pagan Arab adversaries. Typical of these verses is the following: “Then when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and perform the prayer and pay zakat (the alms tax), let them go their way. Surely God is forgiving and merciful.” (Qur’an 9: 5). Another verse, revealed when certain Jewish and Christian groups betrayed the Muslim cause and joined in the military assault by the pagan Arabs against Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim community, cautioned against taking Jews and Christians as close political allies (Qur’an 5: 51). It is only by completely disregarding the original historical context of revelation of such verses and using them to engage in a large-scale abrogation of contradictory vers es that the exclusivist Muslim exegetes have been able to counteract the pluralist ethos that so thoroughly pervades the Qur’an.
In other words, dear brothers, the charge of reading the Qur'an with an open heart and open mind requires understanding the historical context in which it was written. Otherwise, it is to choose ignorance.
Wednesday at 9:00am
Basheer Ghafoor
Yes, we shouldn't abuse or oppress any human being--- regardless of their religion.
But religion isn't how you put it. In Islam, there is a concept of fitrah. Each human is born with a natural belief and a natural tendency to worship one God--- it is the environment of the individual that causes them to make lies about God and to worship Him with partners. Simply put, if you believe there should be a judgment day, where all humans are recounted for their deeds-- there can only be one religion... one way. Please don't read an English translation of the Quran and interpret it however you please. Read the tafseer or ask a reliable Muslim scholar about Surat al kafiroon.
Wednesday at 9:09am
Zach Warren
Basheer, thanks for your admonition -- actually the translation I read comes from one of the world's experts on the Sura al Kafiroon. But I'll forgive the accusation that I "interpret it however I please," since the interpretation is by a believer familiar with hundreds of years of scholarship on the verse. He has a book on the subject coming out soon, and I'll happily pass it on if you're interested to learn more about your religious tradition.
Wednesday at 9:16am
Basheer Ghafoor
If I fully understood the above text, I agree with it. Muslims agree with it. And the Sunnah agrees with it.
In no way are we promoting isolation from non-Muslims and using such verses as an excuse to do so--- while "going to way" and killing them. No. Killing one innocent life is the same as killing the entire world's population--- that's how serious it is. If we were to hate and isolate our selves from non-Muslims--- and never speak to them and promote the killing of them--- that would be against the Sunnah of our Prophet (SAW).
But Surat Al-Kafiroon is exactly the opposite of your interpretation. Allah (SWT) orders our Prophet (Peace be upon him) to not tolerate the disbelievers. We cannot accept or tolerate Buddism or Christianity or Juddaism or any other religion, because it goes against the basic fundamental belief of Islam--- worship One God.
Please read the tafseer (explanation) of reliable scholars on the Surah. Or you can listen to a great speaker (I have posted the link, from Bayyinah Institute) about the Surah.
In the verse that I quoted before, Allah clearly does not accept any other religion besides Islam (which means to submit to One God). He (SWT) will not accept for His creation to associate partners to Him (May He Be Gloried and Exalted). He will only accept His creation to submit and worship Him, and Him only. And that is Islam.
As for the disbelievers (any religion besides worshiping One God), it is clear what will happen to them in the Hereafter.
If Allah accepted another religion besides the submission to Him, and Him alone, there would be no Hellfire. Everyone would just go to Heaven. There would be no judgment day, there would be no test. Nothing.
Sorry if I came off as harsh... but all of this goes against the basic principles in Islam.
Wednesday at 1:10pm
Zach Warren
The Sunnah and Islam as a whole supports the revelations of Jewish and Christian holy books. The Qur'an is considered the completion of these revelations, and therefore in no way is it true that "We cannot accept or tolerate Buddism or Christianity or Juddaism or any other religion, because it goes against the basic fundamental belief of Islam--- worship One God." Judaism and Christianity are monotheistic, Abrahamic religions. Moreover, the Prophet does not advocate intolerance. In fact, he speaks against intolerance and grants special rights and privileges to members of other monotheistic traditions within Muslim lands.
Perhaps what needs to be clarified, in this discussion, is what exactly is meant when you say "tolerance," on a level of policies. Is tolerance merely the absence of killing? Not by Islamic tradition. In Islamic schools of thought, tolerance is much more sophisticated, and relates to all levels of interaction. Tolerance of another faith tradition does not mean you have to agree with it. On the contrary, tolerance applies ONLY when you do NOT agree with it. Do you have any good recommendations for sources on tolerance, specifically? In particular, any texts that take an historical understanding of Islam, drawing from past wisdom?
13 hours ago
Basheer Ghafoor
We argue that, no, they are not monotheistic religions. In order for one to believe in a monotheistic religon (the religion of Abraham (AS), one has to believe in One God.
If one believes in One God, he is Muslim (Muslim = one who is submitting to Islam. Islam = worshipping One God).
Tolerance in the form of a middle path, not taking it to either extremes. That middle path is the way (sunnah) of our Prophet Muhammad (peace be up on him). He engaged in trade with them,
he conversed with them, and he gave them invitations/commmands to accept Islam. Other than that, they don't believe what we believe, and we don't believe what they believe.
Of course, to start off, here are some very important verses from the Quran. Please read at least the first three:
" Never will the jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance." Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah.
" Al Baqara
" They say: "Become jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To salvation)." Say thou: "Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham the True, and he joined not gods with Allah."
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #135)"
"O ye who believe! take not the jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
"
The word for "friend" here is in no way the same "friendship" we are used to. There are many words for "friend" in Arabic, and the word used here means a close companion on whom you rely heavily upon (almost as a protector). Some use this verse as an excuse to say we cannot have Christian or Jew "friends", and they are wrong, and have misinterpreted the verse do to their ignorance of the Arabic language.
"O ye People of the Book! believe in what We have (now) revealed, confirming what was (already) with you, before We change the face and fame of some (of you) beyond all recognition, and turn them hindwards, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers, for the decision of Allah Must be carried out. "
An Nisa
"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah.s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
"
At-Tawba
Here is an English translation of (authentic) narrations of our Prophet (SAW). You will find his (SAW) interactions and dealings with the jews/or christians.
http://www.usc.edu/cgi-bin/msasearch
9 hours ago
Basheer Ghafoor http://www.thedeenshow.com/show.php?action=detail&id=1051
9 hours ago
---
Andy Varyu
Zach, I loved your conversation with Basheer Ghafoor, and was itching to chime in but Facebook won't let me unless he approves me as a friend
You are certainly more up on the texts behind this conversation than I, but it strikes me how much modern Islam, as with current American Christianity - bases so much on a rather superficial read on religions. Basheer seemed to be tuned into the point that Islam=submitting to the One God, but didn't make the leap that a Christian who submits (in his heart) to the same God might also be a brother. Why does the conversation continue to bubble up to the superficiality of "I call myself a (Christian/Muslim) and therefore cannot be a brother with you, a (Muslim/Christian).
In Christianity, as you know, we have the awareness that one can call himself a Christian without actually submitting to or loving God in his heart ("I never knew you!" Matthew 7:21-23). Do some Muslims also have this understanding - that it is not just going through the motions and labels that defines us (which fuel, as you put it, the "terminological and methodological" tactics), but what is going on in our hearts? I would assume that some do - and hence the argument would follow that there are subsets of Muslims, Christians, and Jews (at least) who in their hearts have and do submit to the the One God, can therefore be said to be practicing Islam, and are related as brothers and sisters as children of the One God - and many other Jews, Christians and Muslims who do not have this going on and are the infidels. It strikes me as a bit shallow to think of God as so superficial that he is going to pick whom to be pleased with based on what we call ourselves. No scripture I can think of supports that idea.
Anyway - great to see you taking on this topic, and so articulately - I wish more people would, and that it would be seen more! I think I will post it on my blog just for that reason :)
Peace and love bro,
Andy
Zach Warren commented on Basheer Ghafoor's status.
Basheer Ghafoor
99. If it had been your Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! will you then compel mankind, against their will, to believe? 100.No soul can believe, except by the will of Allah, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand.
13 hours ago
Dawood Banday likes this.
Zach Warren
indeed, he admonished, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256)
And also warned us to consider and appreciate the personal diversity of belief : “Say: O you who disbelieve, I worship not that which you worship, nor will you worship that which I worship, and I will not worship that which you have worshipped, and you will not worship that which I worship, to you is your path (religion) and to me is mine.” (Qur’an 109:1-6).
Tuesday at 6:30am
Dawood Banday
@zach, the above verse doesn't indicate freedom of diversity of belief, rather it is rebuking disbelievers that muslims don't believe what ever you believe....thus, it says, Unto you your religion and unto me my religion.
Wednesday at 8:10am
Basheer Ghafoor
Yes.
Zach-- I'm not sure where you got that idea from. But how can God tell us to consider and appreciate more than one religion? There is only one true religion. The rest of them are just lies made against Allah (May He be Glorified and Exalted).
Verse: “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:85].
Here is a tafseer of surat Al- Kafiroon, http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=109&tid=59385.
Please study the suras from reliable sources... lest you would be making up lies against Islam.
Wednesday at 8:29am
Zach Warren
A chapter of the Qur’an entitled The Unbelievers, referring to those who reject the message of monotheism preached by Prophet Muhammad, stresses that belief is a matter of personal conviction and that difference in faith should not be the cause for persecution or abuse
Wednesday at 8:54am
Zach Warren
The Qur’an’s endorsement of religiously and culturally plural societies and the recognition of the salvific value of other monotheistic religions has greatly affected the treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim lands. If you're interested to learn more, I can recommend some Muslim historical texts, written by believers. Through the centuries, various Muslim societies have attempted to implement these pluralist ideals with varying degrees of success. It is also clear, however, that other Muslim societies, at certain historical times and in certain contexts, have chosen to ignore these pluralist ideals or to cast them aside. In their place, discourses of exclusivism and intolerance became prevalent. The most significant of these can be traced back to the eighth and ninth centuries when Islam became a religion of empire and attempts were made to bestow theological legitimacy to the growth of Arab imperial hegemony. Within this context, certain segments of the Muslim political and religious establishments promoted anti-pluralist - that is, exclusivist - readings and interpretations of the Qur’an, primarily to advance hegemonic goals. For this purpose, as Abdulaziz Sachedina has written (Abdulaziz Sachedina, The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism (Oxford University Press, 2001, see p 29), several Muslim exegetes devised terminological and methodological strategies to mold the exegesis of the sacred text so as to provide a convincing prop for absolutist ends.
In other words, in your words -- lies. The principal means by which the exclusivists were able to promote their view was through the declaration that the many verses calling for pluralism, commanding Muslims to build bridges of understanding with non-Muslims, had been abrogated by other vers es that call for fighting the infidel. The verses in question were revealed in the context of armed conflicts between a small, beleaguered Muslim community and its powerful Christian, Jewish and pagan Arab adversaries. Typical of these verses is the following: “Then when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and perform the prayer and pay zakat (the alms tax), let them go their way. Surely God is forgiving and merciful.” (Qur’an 9: 5). Another verse, revealed when certain Jewish and Christian groups betrayed the Muslim cause and joined in the military assault by the pagan Arabs against Prophet Muhammad and the Muslim community, cautioned against taking Jews and Christians as close political allies (Qur’an 5: 51). It is only by completely disregarding the original historical context of revelation of such verses and using them to engage in a large-scale abrogation of contradictory vers es that the exclusivist Muslim exegetes have been able to counteract the pluralist ethos that so thoroughly pervades the Qur’an.
In other words, dear brothers, the charge of reading the Qur'an with an open heart and open mind requires understanding the historical context in which it was written. Otherwise, it is to choose ignorance.
Wednesday at 9:00am
Basheer Ghafoor
Yes, we shouldn't abuse or oppress any human being--- regardless of their religion.
But religion isn't how you put it. In Islam, there is a concept of fitrah. Each human is born with a natural belief and a natural tendency to worship one God--- it is the environment of the individual that causes them to make lies about God and to worship Him with partners. Simply put, if you believe there should be a judgment day, where all humans are recounted for their deeds-- there can only be one religion... one way. Please don't read an English translation of the Quran and interpret it however you please. Read the tafseer or ask a reliable Muslim scholar about Surat al kafiroon.
Wednesday at 9:09am
Zach Warren
Basheer, thanks for your admonition -- actually the translation I read comes from one of the world's experts on the Sura al Kafiroon. But I'll forgive the accusation that I "interpret it however I please," since the interpretation is by a believer familiar with hundreds of years of scholarship on the verse. He has a book on the subject coming out soon, and I'll happily pass it on if you're interested to learn more about your religious tradition.
Wednesday at 9:16am
Basheer Ghafoor
If I fully understood the above text, I agree with it. Muslims agree with it. And the Sunnah agrees with it.
In no way are we promoting isolation from non-Muslims and using such verses as an excuse to do so--- while "going to way" and killing them. No. Killing one innocent life is the same as killing the entire world's population--- that's how serious it is. If we were to hate and isolate our selves from non-Muslims--- and never speak to them and promote the killing of them--- that would be against the Sunnah of our Prophet (SAW).
But Surat Al-Kafiroon is exactly the opposite of your interpretation. Allah (SWT) orders our Prophet (Peace be upon him) to not tolerate the disbelievers. We cannot accept or tolerate Buddism or Christianity or Juddaism or any other religion, because it goes against the basic fundamental belief of Islam--- worship One God.
Please read the tafseer (explanation) of reliable scholars on the Surah. Or you can listen to a great speaker (I have posted the link, from Bayyinah Institute) about the Surah.
In the verse that I quoted before, Allah clearly does not accept any other religion besides Islam (which means to submit to One God). He (SWT) will not accept for His creation to associate partners to Him (May He Be Gloried and Exalted). He will only accept His creation to submit and worship Him, and Him only. And that is Islam.
As for the disbelievers (any religion besides worshiping One God), it is clear what will happen to them in the Hereafter.
If Allah accepted another religion besides the submission to Him, and Him alone, there would be no Hellfire. Everyone would just go to Heaven. There would be no judgment day, there would be no test. Nothing.
Sorry if I came off as harsh... but all of this goes against the basic principles in Islam.
Wednesday at 1:10pm
Zach Warren
The Sunnah and Islam as a whole supports the revelations of Jewish and Christian holy books. The Qur'an is considered the completion of these revelations, and therefore in no way is it true that "We cannot accept or tolerate Buddism or Christianity or Juddaism or any other religion, because it goes against the basic fundamental belief of Islam--- worship One God." Judaism and Christianity are monotheistic, Abrahamic religions. Moreover, the Prophet does not advocate intolerance. In fact, he speaks against intolerance and grants special rights and privileges to members of other monotheistic traditions within Muslim lands.
Perhaps what needs to be clarified, in this discussion, is what exactly is meant when you say "tolerance," on a level of policies. Is tolerance merely the absence of killing? Not by Islamic tradition. In Islamic schools of thought, tolerance is much more sophisticated, and relates to all levels of interaction. Tolerance of another faith tradition does not mean you have to agree with it. On the contrary, tolerance applies ONLY when you do NOT agree with it. Do you have any good recommendations for sources on tolerance, specifically? In particular, any texts that take an historical understanding of Islam, drawing from past wisdom?
13 hours ago
Basheer Ghafoor
We argue that, no, they are not monotheistic religions. In order for one to believe in a monotheistic religon (the religion of Abraham (AS), one has to believe in One God.
If one believes in One God, he is Muslim (Muslim = one who is submitting to Islam. Islam = worshipping One God).
Tolerance in the form of a middle path, not taking it to either extremes. That middle path is the way (sunnah) of our Prophet Muhammad (peace be up on him). He engaged in trade with them,
he conversed with them, and he gave them invitations/commmands to accept Islam. Other than that, they don't believe what we believe, and we don't believe what they believe.
Of course, to start off, here are some very important verses from the Quran. Please read at least the first three:
" Never will the jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance." Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah.
" Al Baqara
" They say: "Become jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To salvation)." Say thou: "Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham the True, and he joined not gods with Allah."
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #135)"
"O ye who believe! take not the jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
"
The word for "friend" here is in no way the same "friendship" we are used to. There are many words for "friend" in Arabic, and the word used here means a close companion on whom you rely heavily upon (almost as a protector). Some use this verse as an excuse to say we cannot have Christian or Jew "friends", and they are wrong, and have misinterpreted the verse do to their ignorance of the Arabic language.
"O ye People of the Book! believe in what We have (now) revealed, confirming what was (already) with you, before We change the face and fame of some (of you) beyond all recognition, and turn them hindwards, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers, for the decision of Allah Must be carried out. "
An Nisa
"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah.s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
"
At-Tawba
Here is an English translation of (authentic) narrations of our Prophet (SAW). You will find his (SAW) interactions and dealings with the jews/or christians.
http://www.usc.edu/cgi-bin/msasearch
9 hours ago
Basheer Ghafoor http://www.thedeenshow.com/show.php?action=detail&id=1051
9 hours ago
---
Andy Varyu
Zach, I loved your conversation with Basheer Ghafoor, and was itching to chime in but Facebook won't let me unless he approves me as a friend
You are certainly more up on the texts behind this conversation than I, but it strikes me how much modern Islam, as with current American Christianity - bases so much on a rather superficial read on religions. Basheer seemed to be tuned into the point that Islam=submitting to the One God, but didn't make the leap that a Christian who submits (in his heart) to the same God might also be a brother. Why does the conversation continue to bubble up to the superficiality of "I call myself a (Christian/Muslim) and therefore cannot be a brother with you, a (Muslim/Christian).
In Christianity, as you know, we have the awareness that one can call himself a Christian without actually submitting to or loving God in his heart ("I never knew you!" Matthew 7:21-23). Do some Muslims also have this understanding - that it is not just going through the motions and labels that defines us (which fuel, as you put it, the "terminological and methodological" tactics), but what is going on in our hearts? I would assume that some do - and hence the argument would follow that there are subsets of Muslims, Christians, and Jews (at least) who in their hearts have and do submit to the the One God, can therefore be said to be practicing Islam, and are related as brothers and sisters as children of the One God - and many other Jews, Christians and Muslims who do not have this going on and are the infidels. It strikes me as a bit shallow to think of God as so superficial that he is going to pick whom to be pleased with based on what we call ourselves. No scripture I can think of supports that idea.
Anyway - great to see you taking on this topic, and so articulately - I wish more people would, and that it would be seen more! I think I will post it on my blog just for that reason :)
Peace and love bro,
Andy
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
an oil spill to puncture naivete
it was clear 2 weeks into the spill that the gulf would never be the same - at least to some of us - but it took until today for NOAA to come out and say it. "the public has an expectation that with technology we can solve the problem. We know we can't" (Doug Helton, NOAA's seattle-based Emergency Response Division.)
it was even clearer that this oil spill had something major to say about oil and drilling, in answer to Obama's political posturing to open up our shores to drilling just a month before. Something along the lines of "this is not the answer." but it took Obama until today to admit that "there are inherent risks to drilling four miles beneath the surface of the Earth -- risks that are bound to increase the harder oil extraction becomes."
the way I see it, these aren't risks. they are guarantees. because whether we burn the oil in our engines, or spill it before it gets to the pumps, it is choking the planet either way. we shouldn't get so worked up about the oil spill. just as much damage would have been done by carbon emissions from burning the oil if business had progressed as usual. Only, we wouldn't have been thinking about it.
the mass resistance we exhibit every day - both collectively and personally - to the present crisis of climate change is rooted in the same shallow naivete with which we continue to be amazed with how bad the oil spill is, letting awareness in step by step each week as our leaders put words to what we all know, deep inside.
that the gulf of mexico will remain a marred homage to our callous irresponsibility toward the planet through the lives of our children and our children's children has been the reality since week 2 of the spill. had the spill not happened, this same violence our society exhibits toward the planet would have been writ large on a thick sky and the ever accelerating temperatures through those same lifetimes. if it does alter the policy road Obama had started down, and raise the political ire to overcome the deadlock of our "leaders" on clean energy legislation, then i will ever after remember the oil spill with an ironic fondness.
however, whether that happens remains to be seen. so far, our response has been little more than the same old impotent outrage that conveniently distracts us from the fact that a spill like this was not an unfortunate accident; it is the absolute and necessary outcome of the course we have been pursuing.
criminal investigations into culpability on the part of BP, transocean and haliburton - as were announced today - need to be undertaken. But they need to be accompanied by a long hard look at things closer to home - from the history and structure of the MMS, down to each of our personal investments in a lifestyle dependent on oil-based transportation and disposable plastic goods.
denial has gotten us exactly where it was going to. now it's time to wake up and smell the black tar that has been smeared on the wall all along.
it was even clearer that this oil spill had something major to say about oil and drilling, in answer to Obama's political posturing to open up our shores to drilling just a month before. Something along the lines of "this is not the answer." but it took Obama until today to admit that "there are inherent risks to drilling four miles beneath the surface of the Earth -- risks that are bound to increase the harder oil extraction becomes."
the way I see it, these aren't risks. they are guarantees. because whether we burn the oil in our engines, or spill it before it gets to the pumps, it is choking the planet either way. we shouldn't get so worked up about the oil spill. just as much damage would have been done by carbon emissions from burning the oil if business had progressed as usual. Only, we wouldn't have been thinking about it.
the mass resistance we exhibit every day - both collectively and personally - to the present crisis of climate change is rooted in the same shallow naivete with which we continue to be amazed with how bad the oil spill is, letting awareness in step by step each week as our leaders put words to what we all know, deep inside.
that the gulf of mexico will remain a marred homage to our callous irresponsibility toward the planet through the lives of our children and our children's children has been the reality since week 2 of the spill. had the spill not happened, this same violence our society exhibits toward the planet would have been writ large on a thick sky and the ever accelerating temperatures through those same lifetimes. if it does alter the policy road Obama had started down, and raise the political ire to overcome the deadlock of our "leaders" on clean energy legislation, then i will ever after remember the oil spill with an ironic fondness.
however, whether that happens remains to be seen. so far, our response has been little more than the same old impotent outrage that conveniently distracts us from the fact that a spill like this was not an unfortunate accident; it is the absolute and necessary outcome of the course we have been pursuing.
criminal investigations into culpability on the part of BP, transocean and haliburton - as were announced today - need to be undertaken. But they need to be accompanied by a long hard look at things closer to home - from the history and structure of the MMS, down to each of our personal investments in a lifestyle dependent on oil-based transportation and disposable plastic goods.
denial has gotten us exactly where it was going to. now it's time to wake up and smell the black tar that has been smeared on the wall all along.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Black Wealth, White wealth
The author of a book I read in college, "Black Wealth, White Wealth," has come out with a follow-up study. It was covered today on the Michael Eric Dyson show.
The original research (from 1984) shows that while blacks' average income had grown to within 77% of whites' pay for the same job, there was still a huge disparity in wealth, defined as financial assets. One illustration I remember particularly well described how long different families' available assets could support them if they lost a job. With no income, "White's reserves allow them to survive at the poverty level ($968 per month) for over a year, while most blacks... would not make it through the month."
The current update to this research shows that this original disparity between black wealth and white wealth has quadrupled since 1984. It's getting worse - according to the radio interview - at a time when the reigning perception is that a) the racial disparity has pretty much disappeared, and b) that if left to themselves, our social systems will trend toward equalization and erasing the problem.
The research shows this is not the case. There is much to be discussed here, but a conclusion of an hour-long discussion with three of us at Lydia house the other night on this topic is that we as youngish white guys perhaps don't have "responsibility" for creating this problem, but we do have "responsibility" for analyzing and holding accountable the current external social systems and internal unconscious prejudices which contribute to the increasing skin-color disparity in economic opportunity.
All I have to add to this is one thing. The radio show points out that typically such disparity is falsely attributed to flaws perceived as inherent in African Americans - ie, they're lazy, they're bad with money, etc. The research explores and refutes these claims by focusing on the highest-achieving blacks and whites, but still the tendency is to explain away the problem as something "personal" about people with dark skin.
I see a parallel problem that paralyzes well-meaning whites who might be interested in doing something about it: we read such news as an accusation against us - that the disparity is our personal fault and something we should feel guilty about - simply because of our white skin color. Thus we become defensive and take actions more oriented toward self-justifying than toward solving the problem.
Taken together, we can see that the problem is perpetuated by a tendency to blame the individuals involved, which distracts us from looking more broadly at the difficult problem of a complex society which both influences and implicates both blacks and whites in perpetuating both the unequal distribution of resources and a mass abdication of responsibility.
Ironically, we are bombarded by false concepts of responsibility which we must clarify and defend ourselves against, while the true responsibility we have and must take remains buried and unrealized.
We must scrutinize both our motivations and the ways false concepts are given free reign in our thinking and consequent behavior, or nothing will change.
The original research (from 1984) shows that while blacks' average income had grown to within 77% of whites' pay for the same job, there was still a huge disparity in wealth, defined as financial assets. One illustration I remember particularly well described how long different families' available assets could support them if they lost a job. With no income, "White's reserves allow them to survive at the poverty level ($968 per month) for over a year, while most blacks... would not make it through the month."
The current update to this research shows that this original disparity between black wealth and white wealth has quadrupled since 1984. It's getting worse - according to the radio interview - at a time when the reigning perception is that a) the racial disparity has pretty much disappeared, and b) that if left to themselves, our social systems will trend toward equalization and erasing the problem.
The research shows this is not the case. There is much to be discussed here, but a conclusion of an hour-long discussion with three of us at Lydia house the other night on this topic is that we as youngish white guys perhaps don't have "responsibility" for creating this problem, but we do have "responsibility" for analyzing and holding accountable the current external social systems and internal unconscious prejudices which contribute to the increasing skin-color disparity in economic opportunity.
All I have to add to this is one thing. The radio show points out that typically such disparity is falsely attributed to flaws perceived as inherent in African Americans - ie, they're lazy, they're bad with money, etc. The research explores and refutes these claims by focusing on the highest-achieving blacks and whites, but still the tendency is to explain away the problem as something "personal" about people with dark skin.
I see a parallel problem that paralyzes well-meaning whites who might be interested in doing something about it: we read such news as an accusation against us - that the disparity is our personal fault and something we should feel guilty about - simply because of our white skin color. Thus we become defensive and take actions more oriented toward self-justifying than toward solving the problem.
Taken together, we can see that the problem is perpetuated by a tendency to blame the individuals involved, which distracts us from looking more broadly at the difficult problem of a complex society which both influences and implicates both blacks and whites in perpetuating both the unequal distribution of resources and a mass abdication of responsibility.
Ironically, we are bombarded by false concepts of responsibility which we must clarify and defend ourselves against, while the true responsibility we have and must take remains buried and unrealized.
We must scrutinize both our motivations and the ways false concepts are given free reign in our thinking and consequent behavior, or nothing will change.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Notes on Atonement
atonement theory seeks the answer to 'why did Jesus have to die upon the cross?'
Excerpt:
In Mark 10:45 Jesus said, "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (cp. Matt. 20:28, NIV). This is a powerful statement. Jesus redeemed his followers from sin. The price of this redemption, however, was his own life (1 Tim. 2:6; 1 Pet. 1:18,19), the supreme expression of his love for us (cf. John 15:13).
That Jesus described his death as a ransom payment is clear. But to whom was the ransom paid? Jesus never said. In fact, to pose the question is to stretch the metaphor out of shape. Yet the question was posed nonetheless.
Satisfaction/Penal Substitution
The Ransom theory dominated the theological landscape for a millennium until it was finally debunked by Anselm of Canterbury (ca. 1033-1109). Anselm rightly pointed out that this theory gave the devil far too much power. Hence Anselm gave a different answer: Jesus' life was paid as a ransom not to the devil, but to God.
Anselm, who lived in a feudal society, saw sin as dishonor to God. God's nature is such that He cannot overlook dishonor; thus a satisfaction is needed. Since sinful humankind is unable to make sufficient satisfaction, God became human to do it on humanity's behalf. Jesus is then a payment not to Satan but to God.
Pasted from http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html
---
CAN WE THINK OF IT PARALLEL TO JESUS ANSWERING THAT THE MAN BORN BLIND FROM BIRTH WAS NOT BECAUSE OF ANYONE'S SINS, BUT SO THAT MORE WOULD BELIEVE IN HIM?..
---
...
Bob: Okay, Jane, you owe me ten dollars. Pay up.
Jane: Oh, but I don't have the money. Do I really have to pay you back?
Bob: I'm sorry, Jane, but I can't forgive your debt. Somebody has got to pay.
Ted: Hey guys! What's up?
Bob: Well, Ted, if you must know, I'm trying to collect the ten dollars that Jane owes me, but she can't pay it.
Ted: Hmm. Let's see here. Hey, I do have ten dollars on me. Here, Bob, you can let Jane off the hook.
Bob: Jane, your debt is paid. You can go now. You don't owe me anything.
Now in the illustration, did Bob forgive the debt, or was he paid? In fact, Bob was paid off. There was no grace, no mercy, no forgiveness of the debt.
Similarly, if Jesus' death were a literal payment to God for all our sins, then God cannot truly be said to forgive sin.
This observation points out the difficulty of "go[ing] beyond what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6, NIV). Posing the question, "to whom was the ransom paid?" takes us beyond the purview of the Scriptures. The "ransom" was not literally paid to anyone. It is a metaphor used to describe the significance and dramatic effect of Jesus' death.
Above Pasted from http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html
---
in my experience, the power of the cross is not in the concept of my sins being forgiven by it. it is in the fact that jesus would be willing to get up there, both for obedience and for love of me. that somehow if he didn't, then the scriptures would not be fulfilled and his job would not be done… the cosmic effect of what is opened to us in the door to everlasting life - available both now and after we die, through belief in (=relationship with) jesus.
something actually changed cosmically by jesus getting up there. i think it has to do with him drinking the sour wine after telling us to do so as a rememberance of him… it made possible forever after god being able to relate to us (the experience of suffering to death on the cross? - did it make possible a perspective by god, something limited which because of god's omniscience, he could not access outside of human form… his experience of the power of temptation, his expereince of wanting to disobey when he felt how hard it was to walk toward death… i really believe god learned something through this.
the concept of a learning god may seem heretical given an omniscient god, but actually god cannot know everything - because of human free will. he does not know what we will do - this explains his frustration and wrath. god is omniscient in what can be known - but the story of the bible is ultimately the story of god learning how to do relationship with humans, in a way that continues to respect our autonomy as separate persons. coming to walk the earth as jesus then was a 'take a walk in my shoes' journey for god, who would then forever after understand our struggle, temptation, and pain - and truly be able to forgive freely, from a place of empathic compassion.
This is my answer to why Jesus had to die on the cross. i don't think it needs to have anything to do with atonement.
(afterthought ...it strikes me how much our confusion is answered by jesus' teaching to his disciples. he criticizes the disciples for arguing who is greatest (cf conservatives/liberals arguing); and he calls them out for not realizing and being with him when he is there (cf. Christianity and Real Relationship post)
Excerpt:
In Mark 10:45 Jesus said, "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (cp. Matt. 20:28, NIV). This is a powerful statement. Jesus redeemed his followers from sin. The price of this redemption, however, was his own life (1 Tim. 2:6; 1 Pet. 1:18,19), the supreme expression of his love for us (cf. John 15:13).
That Jesus described his death as a ransom payment is clear. But to whom was the ransom paid? Jesus never said. In fact, to pose the question is to stretch the metaphor out of shape. Yet the question was posed nonetheless.
Satisfaction/Penal Substitution
The Ransom theory dominated the theological landscape for a millennium until it was finally debunked by Anselm of Canterbury (ca. 1033-1109). Anselm rightly pointed out that this theory gave the devil far too much power. Hence Anselm gave a different answer: Jesus' life was paid as a ransom not to the devil, but to God.
Anselm, who lived in a feudal society, saw sin as dishonor to God. God's nature is such that He cannot overlook dishonor; thus a satisfaction is needed. Since sinful humankind is unable to make sufficient satisfaction, God became human to do it on humanity's behalf. Jesus is then a payment not to Satan but to God.
Pasted from http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html
---
CAN WE THINK OF IT PARALLEL TO JESUS ANSWERING THAT THE MAN BORN BLIND FROM BIRTH WAS NOT BECAUSE OF ANYONE'S SINS, BUT SO THAT MORE WOULD BELIEVE IN HIM?..
---
...
Bob: Okay, Jane, you owe me ten dollars. Pay up.
Jane: Oh, but I don't have the money. Do I really have to pay you back?
Bob: I'm sorry, Jane, but I can't forgive your debt. Somebody has got to pay.
Ted: Hey guys! What's up?
Bob: Well, Ted, if you must know, I'm trying to collect the ten dollars that Jane owes me, but she can't pay it.
Ted: Hmm. Let's see here. Hey, I do have ten dollars on me. Here, Bob, you can let Jane off the hook.
Bob: Jane, your debt is paid. You can go now. You don't owe me anything.
Now in the illustration, did Bob forgive the debt, or was he paid? In fact, Bob was paid off. There was no grace, no mercy, no forgiveness of the debt.
Similarly, if Jesus' death were a literal payment to God for all our sins, then God cannot truly be said to forgive sin.
This observation points out the difficulty of "go[ing] beyond what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6, NIV). Posing the question, "to whom was the ransom paid?" takes us beyond the purview of the Scriptures. The "ransom" was not literally paid to anyone. It is a metaphor used to describe the significance and dramatic effect of Jesus' death.
Above Pasted from http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html
---
in my experience, the power of the cross is not in the concept of my sins being forgiven by it. it is in the fact that jesus would be willing to get up there, both for obedience and for love of me. that somehow if he didn't, then the scriptures would not be fulfilled and his job would not be done… the cosmic effect of what is opened to us in the door to everlasting life - available both now and after we die, through belief in (=relationship with) jesus.
something actually changed cosmically by jesus getting up there. i think it has to do with him drinking the sour wine after telling us to do so as a rememberance of him… it made possible forever after god being able to relate to us (the experience of suffering to death on the cross? - did it make possible a perspective by god, something limited which because of god's omniscience, he could not access outside of human form… his experience of the power of temptation, his expereince of wanting to disobey when he felt how hard it was to walk toward death… i really believe god learned something through this.
the concept of a learning god may seem heretical given an omniscient god, but actually god cannot know everything - because of human free will. he does not know what we will do - this explains his frustration and wrath. god is omniscient in what can be known - but the story of the bible is ultimately the story of god learning how to do relationship with humans, in a way that continues to respect our autonomy as separate persons. coming to walk the earth as jesus then was a 'take a walk in my shoes' journey for god, who would then forever after understand our struggle, temptation, and pain - and truly be able to forgive freely, from a place of empathic compassion.
This is my answer to why Jesus had to die on the cross. i don't think it needs to have anything to do with atonement.
(afterthought ...it strikes me how much our confusion is answered by jesus' teaching to his disciples. he criticizes the disciples for arguing who is greatest (cf conservatives/liberals arguing); and he calls them out for not realizing and being with him when he is there (cf. Christianity and Real Relationship post)
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Mother wart
.
It's interesting, our mother taught us a lesson about warts.
She said If you start getting warts, you need to remember which one came first. That's the mother wart. Whatever you do to get rid of them, you just need to go for the mother wart. If you try to attack the warts that came after, they'll just keep coming back again, or you'll get new ones to replace them. The cycle won't stop until you kill the mother wart. And If you go after the mother wart from the start and are able to burn it or freeze it away, all the other warts will just fall away.
Now I have never heard this story anywhere else but from my mother. For all I know its just an old wives' tale and may be limited to my family. But I find it interesting that this same story turns out to be what I am learning about growing up and letting go of relationships.
Because you may have trouble getting over an ex-, and even people from long ago can still feel like live wires if they come up. Its like they never went away. And in this case no amount of effort directed toward these ex-relationships, or forgetting, will make them fade from your mind. Because they are not the original source of your trouble letting go. It's your mother, who never let you grow up but forced herself into your consciousness, who must be left behind.
If the mother's relationship was like a wart - something intrusive, violating, near impossible to get rid of - then the troubling attachments that persist later in life also come from the mother. And the only way to move beyond any of them is to kill the mother.
My mother taught me that.
.
It's interesting, our mother taught us a lesson about warts.
She said If you start getting warts, you need to remember which one came first. That's the mother wart. Whatever you do to get rid of them, you just need to go for the mother wart. If you try to attack the warts that came after, they'll just keep coming back again, or you'll get new ones to replace them. The cycle won't stop until you kill the mother wart. And If you go after the mother wart from the start and are able to burn it or freeze it away, all the other warts will just fall away.
Now I have never heard this story anywhere else but from my mother. For all I know its just an old wives' tale and may be limited to my family. But I find it interesting that this same story turns out to be what I am learning about growing up and letting go of relationships.
Because you may have trouble getting over an ex-, and even people from long ago can still feel like live wires if they come up. Its like they never went away. And in this case no amount of effort directed toward these ex-relationships, or forgetting, will make them fade from your mind. Because they are not the original source of your trouble letting go. It's your mother, who never let you grow up but forced herself into your consciousness, who must be left behind.
If the mother's relationship was like a wart - something intrusive, violating, near impossible to get rid of - then the troubling attachments that persist later in life also come from the mother. And the only way to move beyond any of them is to kill the mother.
My mother taught me that.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
