Hit and Run Thought Post

I always hear people (who are usually criticising someone, sometimes me) saying, 'but we have to have faith like a child' - which apparently translates into - 'DON'T QUESTION! JUST OBEY!'


Umm...apparently these people have never spoken to a child.


'Why?' is one of their favorite words. (Along with 'no', but that's another matter)

My grandmother swears my first word was 'why', and that it'll probably be among my last, too. I question things, endlessly. Beat a dead horse, whatever. I don't always understand the explanations for things, I just want to know that there is one, and that someone else knows it and I assume that eventually I will understand it.

My grandmother loves telling this story:


We were in the car, driving somewhere, and I asked her a question. She can't recall the question, but she does remember that she didn't know the answer, and so proceeded to make some long answer up. At the end, she says I said, 'Grammy, if you didn't know the answer, just tell me.'

Anyway. :)


Kids are *always* questioning. It's how they *learn*.

So I don't see any problem with questioning everything, up to and including God. The problem with kids is, eventually we realize that adults don't have all the answers, and the power in the relationship begins to shift, little by little. The thing with God is, He does have all the answers (whether He shares them with us or not, and whether we understand the answers we get or not), so there's no fear of the power structure shifting.

Picture Dump!

Toadstools. I just think the picture on the right looks kind of neat.

Some plant that's growing all tangled up with another tree. I like the way it's fruit looks. But I don't think it's edible.

Various pictures of the sky and clouds and the sun behind them. I just think they're pretty. :)

I'm a ninja! *cough* Sorry, I couldn't resist. But I really did feel ninja-esqe all in black. :) My first attempt at making niqab out of a shayla. The scarf is (clearly) too thin, and I didn't get it loose enough over the face, but for a first attempt, not too bad.

Less ninja. :) I took one of my new sparkly hijab and layered it over the black hijab/niqab, to add color. A little rough, not as elegant as those who do it all the time, but again, I don't think it turned out *too* bad.

Sparkly purple-ish hijab. I watched a video on YouTube, by the Non-Muslim Hijabi, which gave me some very helpful hints. I think this is one of my most successful shayla hijab attempts.

Sparkly purple-ish scarf tied in a 'crown'. I mastered this one early on, the tricky part is getting the knot on the side to lay semi flat so it doesn't stick out like some bizarre horn. I got the instructions for tying it here. They have directions for a variety of styles.

p.s. one of the women from church found me on twitter & is following me....umm...now i feel like i have to be careful what i say...not that i talk about them or anything...*crap* can't recall if she linked to blog from twitter...is that even an option...gotta go see...

5 Things About Me

Sanil did a 5 Things post and tagged anybody who felt like it, so now I feel like it, and am doing it. See the logic? :)

1. I've had the same job since I was 14. Clearly, I don't do change well. :)

2. I like round toed shoes more than any other kind of shoe. I know, it's a weird thing, but I think pointy toed shoes make my feet look very, very long, and they're not. On a related note, I have tiny (short n'stubby) toes, so a long, open-toed shoe just looks silly on me.

3. I hate shopping. I hate it. I don't spend hours going through the racks. I go in, I look through the sales racks, if I like it, I try it, and I either buy it or I don't. I shop with purpose. Conversely, put me in a book store, and I will spend *forever* wandering around, picking things up, putting them back, stroking the covers, weighing my options. I cannot leave a bookstore in under an hour. Ever.

4. I grew up believing that I was going to marry one of my step-father's friends. No worries, he was just joking, but he'd always play He-Man and She-Ra with me, and one day he asked me if I'd marry him when I grew up, and I, of course, said yes, and spent many years telling people so. :)

5. Half the time I think I'd like to be a second wife or something, just because I've always lived with multiple women in the house, and I cannot imagine living with just me and a husband. It's just this vague...'and what do you do with just the two of you?' kind of thing.

Baptism

So, I begin to suspect that part of the problem between Catholicism and Orthodoxy on original sin involves baptism. Bear with me, because this is a thought I just had, so it may or may not be coherent to people who are not me at this stage. :)

I've heard baptism described (in Catholicism for Dummies) as a vaccination - but I don't know that that analogy really works. When you get vaccinated, you don't get the disease that you're vaccinated against. Yes, the Flu Shot seems to wreck my issues with this, until you recall that they're about a billion strains of flu, and the Flu Shot only vaccinates against the ones that are felt to be the most prevalent that year. Think more like polio, etc. People don't get those anymore, in places where we vaccinate for them.

So, baptism as vaccination, if we carried that analogy, once baptised, people wouldn't 'get' sin. Clearly, that's not what happens. Though I suppose, now that I've typed it out, the Flu Shot analogy *does* work a little better - baptism only vaccinates against a particular 'strain' of sin - original sin. *However*, as I have been assured by other Catholics, and the Catechism, the Catholic Church teaches that we don't actually inherit the original sin. (I have a bit of news for them, in that apparently most people -including many Catholics- think that the Catholic Church *does* teach that...) In that case, the vaccination analogy *still* doesn't work, because you're vaccinating for a disease that doesn't exist anymore - it's impossible to catch it.

And it's also not like some giant 'reset' button, because if we don't inherit original sin it doesn't wash it away, and it certainly doesn't undo the inherited consequences of original sin... so what, exactly, does baptism do?

I still think baptism makes the most sense as 'circumcision of the soul' - the sign of the new covenant, bringing us in. Baby Jews are circumcised, and also adult converts (which, ouch, you know?) and, in the case of the babies, there's not this 'believe first' element, or they'd wait until the children were older to do it. Instead, they're circumcised, which brings them into the covenant, and then expected to live by it their entire life. They're brought up observing the Law. So, you know, that makes sense to me.

The Gospel Is Dangerous to Hear

Let Us Attend, pg. 41 - 42:

"It is a dangerous thing to hear the words of the Gospel, for to whom much is given, of him much is required (Luke 12:48). If we hear the truth of Christ, we will be responsible to God for what we do with it. We must not be like the man given a talent by his lord who went and hid it in the ground, doing nothing with it (Matt. 25:18). When we hear the words of the Gospel, we are being entrusted with a treasure, and we must let these words bear fruit in our lives. Otherwise we will hear truth to our condemnation on the Last Day. That is why, before the Gospel is even chanted, the priest prays the Gospel prayer for all who are about to hear it: 'Illumine our hearts, O Master and Lover of mankind, with the pure light of Your divine knowledge. Open the eyes of our mind to the understanding of Your Gospel teachings. Implant also in us the fear of Your blessed commandments, that trampling down all carnal desires, we may enter upon a spiritual manner of living, both thinking and doing such things as are well-pleasing to You.'

"In this prayer, the celebrant lifts up his voice to God that He may shine His light upon our hearts so that, as we listen to His Gospel, we might know Him better. Understanding the Gospel is not an intellectual exercise, but a spiritual operation. It requires not so much a keen mind as an open and humble heart. We need a fear of God's commandments, a reverence for His Word. 'But on this one will I look,' God says, 'On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit,/And who trembles at My word' (Is. 66:2). If we listen to Christ's words with a true and and trembling heart, eager to learn and accept correction, eager to receive a commandment that we may zealously perform it, then we will indeed listen to our salvation. Then the fruit of hearing the Gospel chanted will be that 'we enter upon a spiritual manner of doing,' pleasing God in work and word. We will be not forgetful hearers, but effectual doers (see James 1:25). With so much depending upon our response to hearing the Gospel, no wonder the celebrant first prays for us!"

What I Think Of Original Sin

This is the Adam and Eve painting I like best. It's by Titian. Yes, there is breast, but we're all adults here, yes? I like to think we can be grown up about artwork. The reason I like it is the conceit of the portrayal of the devil. He's a cherub with little horns, and the back half is a snake.

Like the title says. This's been a long time coming, and I've rewritten it by hand a couple times. It's not some huge theological treatise or anything, this is just me, and my opinion, but...I've had a hard time writing it. I tend to veer off into tangents. So, please bear with me. :)

I don't think that there can be a discussion of original sin without mentioning Lucifer. I feel that he represents an integral part of how humans exercise free will. After all, if there is only one choice - God - what's the point of free will? How can you know what good is, if there is no evil? Humans experience, and define things, in many ways, by what they are *not*. Dry, wet, cold, hot, heavy, light. What's something 'dry'? It's not wet. See?

So, without the evil that is represented in Lucifer and his fallen angels, would we understand the goodness of God and His angels the way that we do?

And I'll admit, 'sympathy for the devil'? I have it. I suppose it's from a feeling that it isn't *fair* that we can ask for, and receive, forgiveness, and most people hold that he and the other angels can't. Of course, we don't really know the details of the Rebellion, if that's really what it was, but could what they did be any worse than what we, as humans have done? And then there's Job - I read that, and I see Lucifer as someone performing a *job*, in wreaking havoc and tempting. It goes back to my whole, you need both good and evil to define either one.

I happen to like this quote, for a philosophy on this entire matter:

"Concerning this 'war in heaven' (Rev. 12:7) we have only cryptic references in
Scripture; we are not told in detail what happened, still less do we know what
plans God has for a possible reconciliation within the noetic realm, or how (if
at all) the devil may eventually be redeemed. Perhaps, as the first chapter of
the Book of Job suggests, Satan is not as black as he is usually painted. For
us, at this present stage in our earthly existence, Satan is the enemy; but
Satan has also a direct relationship with God, of which we know nothing at all
and about which it is not wise for us to speculate. Let us mind our own
business." - Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way, pg. 57 - 58

So. Why begin with Satan when I'm supposed to be talking about Original Sin? Because, to my mind, without him, there wouldn't have *been* an original sin. The *original* original sin was his. Before we even came on the scene, the Devil and his angels had rebelled - they had defied and sinned against God. If Lucifer hadn't rebelled, he wouldn't have been in the Garden, whispering to Eve and Adam. And without his whisper, would they have eaten the fruit?

Ah, but he was, and they did. So. What was the original sin? I don't think that it was a shiny red apple, that's artistic representation. It wasn't even a literal fruit. What does the Bible actually say:

"Gen. 2: 16-17 - And the Lord God commanded Adam, saying, 'You may eat food from every tree in the garden; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you may not eat; for in whatever day you eat from it, you shall die by death.'"

"Gen. 3: 2-5 - And the woman said to the serpent, 'We may eat the fruit from the trees of the garden; but from the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, 'You shall not eat from it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die'.' Then the serpent said to the woman, 'You shall not die by death. For God knows in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil.'"

Okay, so. If they weren't literal trees, which I don't think they were, what were they? And what was the 'fruit'? I can't tell you what the 'trees' were, but their 'fruit' was knowledge. Different 'fruits', different kinds of knowledge. God told them they could gain any knowledge, except for this one, the knowledge of good and evil. Why? Well, once you can see, good is this, evil is this, then, as creatures with free will, we have a choice. Before that, we have a choice, but we don't really *understand* it. Would we have gained that knowledge eventually?

I like to think, yes. I believe that the end goal was always the deification of mankind. We would have been given the knowledge, eventually. *However*, we weren't ready for it, when we took it. Our ancestors attempted to do an 'end run' around God and gain knowledge that we weren't prepared for. They thought of what *they* wanted, and not what God wanted, and *that* was the first sin. Self-centeredness.

And what happened, to them, to us, as a result?

1. Death - prior to the Fall, mankind was immortal. No death. After the fall, we became mortal. God told us death would be the result - since Adam and Eve didn't drop dead immediately, the aging and death that we know as normal must be what was meant, along with the spiritual death that is the separation from God we experience in sin. I believe it is a *mercy*, actually, that we die a mortal death. After all, if we were still immortal, but fallen, we would have to suffer as we do for all eternity. Death is a ending, and a new beginning. We can leave this struggle behind and go on to where we were always meant to be.

2. Propensity to sin - I cannot believe that we carry any of the guilt for the original sin. We weren't there, we didn't eat the fruit. However, as we are descended from those who *did*, we suffer the consequences of it. The inclination to sin is one of these consequences. When given two choices, one good, one bad, our first impulse is often to the bad. Why? Because it (nearly always) *feels* better, in the now. It's *easier*. It feeds our selfishness.

3. Man is a tarnished Image of God - We were created in the Image of God (Gen. 1: 26 - 27), but after the Fall, that Image is a little stained. We're not totally evil and depraved, or we wouldn't even be able to realize that we were in need of saving. Rather, I think it's like a veil that's covered us. We see through the veil, which tints and reshapes the world that we see. The world God created is still there (there is only one reality - we lack the power, even from the beginning, to change what God made from good into evil), but our perception of it is not as it should be. When we reside in the grace of God, struggling against our own selfish natures, against the propensity to sin, we lift the veil a little, and see the world as it really is.

4. Hardship - all the pain, suffering, hard work, and agony that we live with, came through the fault line of that original sin. And now we can use it, and how we react to the problems of the world, can be used to help us back into the grace of God.

5. Our Intellect - we were always meant to be thinking creatures, so the questioning, pushing parts of us are natural. The fact that someone invents a new energy source, or a new drug, doesn't make them (or what they've made), evil. It's neutral. It's what we *do* with our intelligence, what we do with what we make that is either good or evil. We have the capacity for both.

So. That's what I think. I hope that makes sense. If not, I'm sure someone will let me know. :)

Notorious: John List

First off, I like true crime stories, and I have a particular love (which is a weird word for this, but it's true) of serial killers. Which is not to say that I'm one of those creepy groupie people. I don't write to them, I certainly don't want to date and or marry them, and I will die quite happily having never actually met one. However, I find the stories of them fascinating. They're like rogue sharks - an animal that acts outside of the ordinary nature of its species. I even used to have a theory that the sheer numbers of serial killers, mass murderers, etc. (which seems to get higher all the time) is a sort of function of the over population of the planet - not that they didn't have these sorts of killers back in 'the day', but there seem to be more of them. Of course, this could just be that we're more *aware* of them, which is why I say I 'used to' have this theory. :)

Anyway...I say all this to say I watch a lot of true crime shows on TV. I was watching Notorious (I think that's which one it was) the other day, and they did a feature on a man named John List (and here's another, longer article). I'd say (as always) read them for a good idea of the events, but for those who don't want to, here's a brief recap:

On November 9, 1971 Mr. List murdered his mother, his wife, and their three children. He planned it quite carefully and calmly - he laid groundwork for his family being 'out of town' for quite some time - he *asked* his kids what they wanted done with their bodies. On the day of the murders, he sent the kids off to school as if nothing was different, shot his wife in the kitchen and then went upstairs and shot his mother in her attic apartment. Then, as his kids came home, he shot them as well. In the mean time, between killings and attempts to clean up the blood, he mowed the lawn, ate lunch (at the table he shot his wife at), and wrote out some very long letters to different people detailing what he wanted done with the bodies, etc. He also wrote a six page letter to his pastor (who would *understand*, he felt) explaining why he did it.

He slept in the basement of the house that night, while the bodies of his entire family lay in the ballroom (except for his mother, who was too heavy for him to move downstairs). The next day, he got up, turned on all the lights in the house, turned on music, and left. And disappeared for nearly 18 years. He went off, started a new life, married again. He was caught, eventually, because one of his neighbors saw him on America's Most Wanted. He received five consecutive life sentences and died in prison in 2008.

All very gruesome and sad. But here's the bit that actually caught my attention - when he was explaining himself to his pastor, he said that he had to kill the family because they were badly in debt, they were living beyond their means, his wife was ill (syphilis from her previous husband apparently), his daughter was rebelling against him, and he didn't want them to suffer the moral decline and evil that he felt they would descend into if they were poor. This way, he felt, they would definitely be going to heaven. So he shot them to save them.

Why didn't he 'save' himself? Well, suicide would get him sent to hell. So he ran. He felt that he'd sent his family to heaven, and when he died, they would all be reunited. Either they wouldn't remember him shooting them in the face, or they'd have forgiven him. One of the two.

And, as far as I can tell from the show and the reading I've been doing, he *never once* said that he'd done anything wrong in killing them! *Never!* He didn't seem to have any emotional connection to the killings at all in the interview they showed. But, and this is the kicker, he *still expected to get into heaven*. After all, he was a good Lutheran, he was *saved*, so it didn't *count* or something, that he'd committed murder. (The best part of that segment was John Walsh being interviewed, cursing this guy. Of course, child murders are especially painful for Mr. Walsh, even more so than for everyone else.)

Now, I understand that even a murderer may be forgiven, by God. However, this guy seems to have missed the part where you have to realize that you've DONE SOMETHING WRONG! And then, repent, honestly, and truly. And even then, you've got to *pay* for your crimes! (Bullet to the back of the head, people - I don't hold with this let 'em live for decades crap).

Don't get me wrong, I *know* that this is not what Christianity teaches, what this man thought, but it's what he claimed. He claimed a religious justification, in a sense, for murdering people - or at least he never thought that he'd done anything wrong, based on his faith.

Just one (extreme) example of the way people can manipulate their faith to justify just about anything if they want to.