The Walking Dead

Author's Note: I wrote this a LONG time ago. I've edited it to reflect my current beliefs.

A zombie is a creature that is neither alive nor fully dead, capable of locomotion but devoid of any feeling, emotion, care, or reason, existing with only one primal desire:  Hunger.

Yeah, I know, they're not real.  They're a pop culture myth with roots going back centuries, and very popular these days, but still...not real.  But go along with this as a concept anyway, hm?

People often call them evil; they are certainly not part of any natural order, but evil?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  Evil is many things, the easiest and most cowardly philosophically defined as that which is not "good".  But without the ability to reason and to choose any other nature, can they be called evil?  If you call them "evil", then sharks are evil; they are devoid of feeling, emotion, care, or reason, and exist solely as a predator, driven by nothing else than a desire to survive and feed...hunger, if you will.

I give this description because I'm going to make a comparison here that's going to be, depending on your belief or faith, or lack thereof, either entertaining or offensive.

I didn't intend for this blog to turn into one that focused solely on religion and the Christian faith, but with life events that have occurred over the last seven years, it HAS kind of turned out that way.  The incidents, and ideas, have weighed heavily on my mind and heart/soul.  It's been a test of faith for me, unlike any that have happened before, even when I struggled with the very idea that Jesus was the Son of God.

This isn't going to focus on that, though I am willing to discuss it with anyone that wishes.  I no longer call myself a Christian.  

Now, I find myself questioning more than I ever did when I was a Christian; "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling", indeed.

Because of this journey, which hasn't been easy AT ALL, I find myself disillusioned by the Christian church as a whole.  "The Church" as an entity is made up of fallible and flawed people, of which I am one.  I make no claims to perfection.  I make no claim to being "good" or especially "Christ-like" in much I say or do.

What I DO say and do is the best I can do.  I do my best.  I try.  I at one time, long ago, accepted Jesus as Savior, and even Lord, though lately it's been more akin to a feudal relationship than the Biblical example of a marriage relationship.  He may be Lord, yes, but I cannot relate to Him.  I believe that ascribing human traits to Him, even though He lived among us, is not only futile but foolish; if I hold to a belief that He is God, then how can my limited understanding comprehend Him as God?  Much of what we know of Him and believe is through the Bible; the church today is built around precepts He taught and said, based on historical record, and by the teachings and letters of those followers that lead the new Christian faith after His ascension.

This is where things start unraveling for me.

First, Christians believe the Bible is the Divinely inspired Word of God.  I used to believe this as well, but over time and living, prayer and living, living and living, I've run into some snags.  Which version is the Divine inspired Word?  They can't all be; there are contradictions!  Concepts are redefined as newer translations come out, clarifying points and spots; in many ways, this has made some things more clear, but there are still some that are not quite there.  What about those?

The overall compilation (yes, compilation) is a collection of stories, histories, and ideas that have been around for thousands of years.  It is ethnocentric, focused on us Jews as the Chosen People of God, then broadening in the B'rit Hadashah, the New Testament, to include all peoples that believe and accept Jesus, as Paul taught.  The ethnocentrism subtly shifted to the Chosen People now being anyone that accepts Him through belief.  But all of the original authors that are included with VERY few exception were Jews, raised in a patriarchal culture that subjugated women, kept slaves, WERE slaves, and oppressed at every turn.  No one ever questions the unavoidable bias this MUST include.

Why not?

Christians typically view the Bible as LAW, Rule #1 if you will, even when told that it should not be a hard and unyielding law.  They live with the zealot's belief that no other possible avenue could be true; if in doubt, see Rule #1.  "God (the Bible) said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" is a comment I've heard so many times in life.  At one point even I believed that, though I amended it further to be, "If God said it, that settles it."  My belief didn't enter into the equation; after all, if He said it and it was fact, my belief was secondary.

The issue with such unwavering conviction is that if you accept the Bible as Divinely inspired Word, then it must ALL be accepted, not just certain parts.  Christians today use the famed "clobber scriptures" to call down proverbial fire on homosexuals, all the while ignoring the parts that are inconvenient, writing them off as not relevant because the laws have changed:  Slaves, anyone?  Kill all the unbelievers, man, woman, child, and burn their places to the ground?  "Oh, that's Old Testament!"  Ok, let's look at the New then.

The New Testament addresses treatment of slaves, though modern translations have softened that to "servants".  The New Testament says that unless you're a born Jew, and thus a goyim (Gentile) you are only bound to not eat food offered to idols, eating blood, eating something strangled, and sexual immorality.

How very odd!

Ok, the first three are really easy...much of that was culturally based anyhow; food isn't really offered to idols anymore, I'm not fond of eating blood anyway, and what meat is strangled when killed today?  That leaves sexual immorality...some define this as fornication, most leave it as the all inclusive original.

But what IS sexual immorality?  Topless beaches are normal in France.  Here, you'd be arrested and called a sinner for it.  Baptists say dancing leads to sexual immorality, as does alcohol.  Pentecostals believe it's immoral to cut your hair, wear slacks, and wear makeup if you're female.  Even more telling, if you go by what the Bible says is immoral, you'd end up with a society nearly like radical Islam at the worst extreme, but repressive at best.  It's illegal to have more than one wife in most places, and illegal and/or immoral to have sexual relations outside of that single bond...yet most Christians gloss over the multiple wives and concubines many Jewish men had.

Ok, true, but then doesn't that mean the Bible might be wrong?  "Oh, that was then!  That's not acceptable today." So, some things acceptable then aren't today, and some that weren't, are?  Who decides, if the Bible is the infallible Word of God?

Where am I going with all of this?  And didn't this start with zombies?

Well, yeah.  Ok, here goes...

Most Christians follow the Bible without question; it's the Word of God.  They take any message pumped out from a pulpit, accept it, and never question, trusting the Holy Spirit to ensure the message they receive is from God.  After all, even if it SOUNDS flawed like some Biblical contradictions, the Spirit will make sure it turns out ok.  (Actually, I do (did?) believe that to a point...I just don't accept that an all knowing, all seeing God would allow His Divine Word to be so haphazard...since I believe in the infallibility of God, then the haphazard Bible isn't His Divine Word. His Spirit can still use it...God uses cracked pots!  But calling something perfect and divine when it's not denigrates the very all powerful God you claim to worship, as He would not, indeed COULD NOT allow shoddy work to reflect Him.  As the old saying goes, you can't get pure water from polluted sources.  To which the religious zealot then claims the miraculous, and you're just wasting time at that point...you can't convince a fanatic.)

Since they do not question, they follow it to the letter.  Gays are going to hell, masturbation is a sin, drinking is a sin, etc....no compromise.  Very little, if any, reason or logic.

In short, Christians, AS MOST TODAY LIVE, are little more than Walking Dead...zombies.

There's no thought, or at least very little independent thought.  If you aren't like them, they shun you, ignoring you.  Their only focus is their walk with God, much like a zombie ignores other zombies in their pursuit of flesh.  Their hunger for a deeper walk with Jesus often blinds them to the poor, hurting, hungry, scarred, injured, etc at their feet, stepping on them, unseeing.  The typical Church person means well, they really do...but the religion, the rules, the law has leeched all life from their actions (not all...some, like the church I left, actually do a good job for the right reasons).  Even the good they do many times is tarnished because they do it for the wrong reasons; most Christians do good works for reward in Heaven, not for salvation.  

Poor, blind Pharisees.

It's not the work that garners reward.  It's the giving heart, the love, the LIFE from faith and trust in Jesus that allows the same good works to be done, but for the right reasons.  The precious few do works because it's the Life in them that leads them to do good, and the reward they may get in the afterlife is because of the condition of their heart, not the works done for misguided selfishness.

The Bible, THEIR OWN BIBLE, calls those "Dead Works", and spells out the issues with doing works for all the wrong reasons, or having an impetus from the wrong source.

Dead works from dead hearts and dead minds; it's not for no reason I say the Christian Majority might as well be zombies...they're Walking Dead.

The Cult of Personality

One of the things that I try to pride myself on, in the sense of dedication to pursuit as opposed to hubris, is critical thinking.

To many people, critical thinking is a mindset by which you are always critical of things and others to the point of being harsh, or always finding fault; this is akin to shooting someone with a gun and then blaming the weapon for the death...which, ironically, happens all too much.

But I digress...

And a caveat:  I am a Christian and I believe in Jesus as Savior.  I still also believe what I'm about to say, too.

To quote the rather extensive article on "Critical Thinking" at Wikipedia:
"Critical thinking is a type of reasonable, reflective thinking that is aimed at deciding what to believe or what to do. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false."

In other words, when you apply critical thinking to <blank>, you're evaluating <blank> to ascertain at the most fundamental level whether or not said <blank> is "True/False, Right/Wrong, Just/Unjust".  Additionally, whether or not those things apply to YOU and your acceptance (or lack thereof) of the same.

More so, it also infers being able to apply logic, reason, and sense, removing emotionalism from the decision-making process as it applies as an external or internal influence, distilling the process to its most basic foundation.

Bear with me; I'm going somewhere with this.

No, really.

You see, I've been struggling with some uncomfortable ideas and their effect on us as a society, not the least of which is civil rights for gay couples, love/sex/relationships and how they affect me and those around me, etc.  It's led me to go back to my Strong's Concordance, various translations of Scripture, and then to look at society around me; from there, I've begun to have a rather sneaking suspicion that much of what is taught today as scriptural canon often isn't...or is, depending which version of the Bible you use, or which religion you are, or which teacher you have, or...

You get the picture.

In all of this introspection and ancillary critical thinking, a rather disturbing notion arose...consider the two definitions below:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult?s=t

I find it disturbing that the definition of a cult, an organization or group that is often derided and scoffed at is at face value very, VERY similar to that of religion, which is often venerated and revered.  Most Christians don't like to be reminded that the Christian faith/religion was considered a cult by their Roman overlords of the past.

So how does this apply today?  Much good has been done in the name of Jesus the Messiah, Yeshua HaMashiach...and much evil has been done in the name of Christendom as well.

When does a cult become an accepted religion?  Or worse, when does an accepted religion devolve into a cult?

"Why...what are your thoughts on this?"

I'm so glad you asked.

Short answer: I don't know.  While comfortably well above the average in intellect and education, I'm not so arrogant or foolish to believe I have all of the answers, but I have some beginning thoughts I'll share.  

A cult, in my thinking, is in line with the definition, but is set apart from a religion in that it's not a framework for defining the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe or sentients.  That seems to be a key difference, at least philosophically.  But from a practical perspective, the devolution of a religion to a cult seems to be at the point where the established teachings diverge from those of the founder/foundation, regardless of the scope or grandiosity of the vision.

And if that doesn't cause you to go, "Whoa, wait, hold on a second!" then you're not paying close enough attention to teachings from and about the Bible.

"If it ain't in red, it ain't what He said!"

"I only follow the New Testament; after all, Jesus put an end to the Old Testament law."

"You have to follow ALL of the Scriptures!"

"Only the King James Bible is the True Word of God."

Etc, ad nauseum...

Today much of what's taught boils down to a cult of personality, where the charisma of the teacher lends importance and gravitas to the teaching more than the substance or impact of the inherent TRUTH behind it...if any.  How, exactly, did "Love your neighbor as yourself" get turned into "Love your neighbor as yourself unless they're gay/black/white/Muslim/etc"?  Oh, sure, they still preach the "Love your neighbor as yourself" from the pulpit...so why do so many Christians end up applying filters and conditions?  

I've been told by people in churches that I was wrong for not wearing better clothes to church; some have even gone as far as to tell me I was in sin!  

CLASSIC lack of critical thinking there.  Bear with me...I know many of you, especially the atheists will cry "Foul" because you're going to say I should first apply critical thinking to the fact I believe in God and Jesus as Savior; I know, it even appears hypocritical.  Here's what I have to say about that...

"Thbbft!"

First, "God so loved the world that He sent His only Son, that WHOSOEVER believes in Him should not perish, BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE".  Second, Jesus died for ALL sins, for EVERY person, for ALL time.  He sacrificed Himself for me when I was the most repugnant to Him from a sin perspective...so do you REALLY think He cares what I wear to church?

"Oh, but you should wear better clothes out of respect for what He did!"

Oh, right, because outward appearance is such a great measure of the contents of a person's soul and heart...or didn't you read the Scriptures where Jesus condemned those who focus on outward appearances and have souls and hearts rotten as a corpse?  Wouldn't it be a GREATER show of respect to have a clear conscience and heart, to love others in spite of their flaws and faults, just like He did for us?  To not judge someone because of how they're dressed, or how they smell, or...going out on a limb here...who they love?

Yet, people do these things All. Damn. Day. Long.  They have entire campaigns built around them.  They found churches based on differences in Scripture, then foist these beliefs on others as (pun intended) the Gospel Truth...and it's really just their personal belief.

Like Brother Dave Gardner once said in one of his classic rambles, when a character was asked if everyone should do something, and he answered an emphatic "YES!", paraphrased, "That's the root of fanaticism."

This sounds a lot like many religions and denominational offshoots, including the myriad versions of Christianity today.

Or a cult.

Wait...what?

I'm going to start calling people who don't act Christ-like "vampires".

Yes, yes, I know..."glass house/stones", "splinter your eye/lightpole in mine", etc.

It's called a "joke".  Sarcasm...look it up.

Anyway, I'm not really sure where some of the vampire myth specifics started, and frankly I'm kinda sick this morning and...ok, I'm too lazy to look it up.

Happy?  Moving on.

So, I was taking a shower last night and as I was washing myself I had one of those "PING" thoughts; you know, thinking "A" pings to "B" which pings to "C" then pings to "D" and before you know it you're nowhere near where you started, and you're somewhere brought to you by the letters "W", "T", and "F".

WTF?

Kinda like that picture.  Not where I started, but where I ended up...and hey, Katy Perry cleavage.  "C" is good enough for me.

Anyway, I digress...where was I...Oh!  Right.

So, I was showering and I thought about "wood".  Hush. Just...hush.  So, wood jumped to "stake"...again with the hushing!  Stake jumped to vampire, and then vampire jumped to the myth where vampires rise after being dead three days and...and they....wait a second.

That's interesting.  Vampires rise as vampires after dying and being dead three days; Jesus died and rose again on the third day.

Myself: I wonder...are there any other parallels or reversals between the two...?

Apparently, there are if you look.  No, it's not a complete match, but enough to make you wonder if maybe Bram Stoker just said, "Ok, let's take Jesus and reverse everything about him and we'll tie that to the vampire blood-drinking myth, cuz hey...it's always about the blood, right?"

Which brings us to the blood.  Lots of vampiric power comes from blood.  It's what keeps them alive.  Ironically, for Christians, the blood of Christ is what they derive forgiveness from...and since the "wages of sin are death", they also derive life from His blood.

There's power in the blood, indeed.

Vampires take their blood by violent attack and seduction; the whole "volunteering" blood is a recent pop-culture construct, one popularized by television shows such as Buffy the Vampire SLayer.

Yes, the "L" is capitalized...after fucking two vampires, "Vampire Layer" is also accurate.

Buffy and Spike

Buffy and Angel

Buffy and Satsu

Wait, what?  Buffy slept with a Slayer too??  Yeah, in the Official Season Eight comic, Joss had her being all open-minded and experimental.  Get over it.  Like I said...SLayer.

Moving on...
So vampires take blood...but the blood for the forgiveness of Christians had to be freely given by Jesus; He went to the cross willingly, and according to Him, only He could do so. (John 10:18)  So there's a parallel and a reversal with the blood.

Oh, hey, the cross!  As we all know, the cross as a holy symbol is anathema to vampires.  Recently, again via pop culture, it's been expanded to any holy symbol or religious symbol you hold sacred (Cross for Christians, Star of David for Jews, Lightsaber for Jedi, Colander for Pastafarians, Bathrobe and Beer for Dudists)  Some might argue that the Cross is the most effective holy symbol, but it's probably solely because of the prevalence of Christianity and because Stoker wrote it that way.

Vampires are automatically damned.  Do not pass "GO", do not collect 200 blood bags, no reprieve.  I've always had an issue with that one...damnation ultimately relates to a choice on the part of a person, and some people were "turned" (made into vampires) against their will or without a choice.  I think he missed the mark on that one, probably due to lack of theological knowledge if I had to guess, but that's just a guess.  He might've been a Doctor of Theology and just decided to show how horrible vampires were by making them automagically damned.  *shrugs*  It might more tie in with the black/white view that Jesus/God/Heaven are symbolic of all that's "Good", and Lucifer/Hell/Demons being all that's "Bad".  Since vampires are the "Devil's Children", ergo "bad"; and if the Devil can't be saved, then they can't either.  Again, the antithesis of Christ and Christians.

After a short human life, vampires die and are reborn to live forever as minions to their master.  Christians live a short human life, then die to live forever with Christ as God's children, the Bride of Christ.  Christians are transformed, and the Bible promises new, powerful bodies in Heaven.  Vampires are transformed after death (during?) and receive new, powerful bodies on Earth.

Christians are saved from the Grave (death) while vampires are cursed to it, and must rise every night from their grave, and return to it before sunrise, forever UNdead, a mockery of Christian eternal life.

Vampires and garlic, and transforming into bats, wolves, and mist...Stoker was on some really good shit.  Had to be.  Just sayin'.

So, that's all I have.  Sorry it's been so long, and sorry to return with so lame, but I hope you were at least amused and entertained.  Hell, for all I know you all already knew this and are thinking, "Uh...where have you been? That's been pointed out since 'Dracula' was published."

Well, EXCUUUUUUSE ME!

Good Questions!

Yol asked in my last post:  "James, first of all let me tell you that I do enjoy your blog very much. It feels sincere, open, and full of doubts (which I do value.) I am always full of questions myself. Also, as a disclaimer, I am not christian. Please keep in mind that I mean no offense to you or your belief system. I respect you. So, question #1: Would you give me your thoughts on why is the christian god needed? Why the rules and regulations? Question #2: regarding the polyamory situation, why do we assume that there is The One and then the others? What if it is a flat hierarchy where all the parts are like you said in your previous blog, sharing equally in all matters (emotionally, physically, financially)? Lastly, I think that if the christian god were to be real she would would be very intrigued/amused/dismissive of the "fine print" (and it feels like it is full of fine print) placed in the contract (between her and the humans) by the lawyers involved in the transaction... Peace!"

Hm.  Ok, I guess we'll just take them line by line, si?

#1  I can only answer your question from the two perspectives I have had in my life: My original pre-Christian mindset, and my current Christian one.  From the original perspective, He's not needed at all.  He's demanding, confusing, harsh, uncompromising, restrictive, and a real buzz-kill.  His people spout hate and are intolerant.  He appears no different than any other petty, demanding god with a nasty narcissistic streak.  Need?  Who would WANT that?
Now, I say all this so you can appreciate that this was my perspective of God BEFORE I became a Christian, to see where I was and how much my view changed.  My view and belief has always been logical in basis, which seems ironic to the point of contradiction in a spiritual arena, but it's true:  I read a book called "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis; yes, the Narnia one.  He set out to prove that Christians were wrong, and in the process ended up convincing himself the opposite; Christ was either liar, lunatic, or Lord.  Discounting the first two, that only left one option; I recommend the book heartily.  It's not preachy. 
Once I made it through the logical assertion, it made it possible to accept certain other things on faith.  Thus began a life-long search for understanding in Scripture; you see, the Christian view is not that we have rules to live by and regulations...the view is instead that because of our human nature, we're predisposed to a sinful condition that is a binding, pleasurable silken cord that is killing our spirits, and the teachings you consider restrictive keep us free and safe from morally and spiritually destructive elements of life, severing that cord.  Christians don't view this life or our existing bodies as the "end all"; we take the long view.  From the Christian perspective, we do things displeasing to our Creator; that's not His fault...He created us with free will so we could choose to follow Him, and gave us the tools to do it.  The rewards are eternal; so are the penalties.
So, the path in a nutshell was this:  Belief that Jesus was Lord and not a liar or lunatic, accepting His teachings as result, accepting knowledge of my sinful nature as a human, accepting His sacrifice as necessary ( a WHOOOLE other story...), and then accepting that the only safe path through a life full of temptations to do things against my new paradigm was following God.  Seeing my previous life as sinful and restrictive, and embracing His paradigm as freeing from that, was liberating, not confining.  Oh, don't get me wrong, there's been questioning all along in my life; I don't simply accept man's opinion of Scripture as fact; I don't blindly accept the Bible as fact, as I pointed out in my second post.  There are some things that would be stumbling blocks, and thus wrong, for a baby Christian that are not wrong for me...it's a process.  He's a forgiving God; but we have to own up and accept the consequences for what we do when we're told, time and time and time again, that what we're doing is wrong.  And if we do it ANYWAY, well...it's not His fault.  He DID warn us.

#2  This one is still difficult for me.  I've been in a 3-way relationship; more than once, actually.  It worked between us until someone just grew in a different direction; so, we parted, amicably.  That's not to say it ALWAYS works; actually it works pretty rarely.  Like Nurodancer said in another comment, and like I agreed, there are certain circumstances it seems to work best in.
But that's a lifestyle outside of the chosen paradigm of Christianity that I've put my self into; even though I've proven it can work with the right mix, people, and maturity, it's outside the Christian model of one man, one woman.  And before you even ask, I support gay marriage.  I don't see it as a morality issue that I have any business trying to control; it's a civil rights issue.  The morality is between them and their God, not them and me and the court system.  So yes, I support the right of two gay people to marry if they choose; I, however, choose the Christian paradigm, and as such must follow the tenets of the faith.

#3  Yolanda, I could not agree more!  I'm positive God hates it.
Religion is rules lawyering; it's either following the rules until all life and fun is sucked from it, or it's used as a weapon to beat people over the head to make them "be like me"...neither represents any definition of the word "Freedom" as I understand it.  Neither one is based in life or love, two things Jesus stood for: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and the second is like the first, love your neighbor as yourself."  *crickets chirp*

Kinda sums it up, huh.

Parallel Spirituality

Many people may remember when I first became a Christian...

I've since apologized for my behavior to them all.

No, I don't regret becoming a Christian, far from it...but I handled it all very immaturely, and I hurt a lot of dear people who deserved better.

On the plus side to this debacle, I learned that there are instances in Scripture that echo each other spiritually vs physically; they parallel each other, where one situation here on our earthly plane will mirror one spiritually, and vice versa.

The link between my earlier immaturity and this example is this: It's not a coincidence that new Christians are referred to as "born again", or "born anew"...and in fact are often called "baby Christians".

Consider this:

Babies are born helpless; they need to be fed, protected, and nurtured.  They're often loud.  They make stinky messes.  They spit up on people.  They can't walk on their own, nor can they even stand alone.  They can't handle real adult food; in fact, not only can't they chew it, they can't break down the stuff for the nutrients with their immature organs...in short, it would kill them to try to handle adult food, among other things.

Now, let's look at a new Christian, generally speaking:

Spiritually, they're helpless...they don't know much about right and wrong from their new world-view; they need more knowledgeable people to nurture them and help them walk through their early days.  They're telling EVERYONE about their new life, whether they want to hear it or not.  They try to "help" people, and often muck things up in their inexperience.  They "spit up" on people, metaphorically speaking.  They need support in their Christian walk, so they don't walk alone.  Paul said that new Christians need "milk", easy teachings to make a foundation, but once they mature need to put that aside and move on to more solid spiritual food, and again he says something like it in an earlier book.

So you can see how one is an example of the other...and it's a fine way to drive home the point that we always have much more to learn!

This being said, here's a point I'd like to bring up as a counter-point to my very first blog post; I realized something tonight that in all my life I never considered...and it also means that I have to admit when I'm wrong.

And that sucks.

Sadly, I'm wrong a lot.  *sighs*

For most of my life I could see no issue with polyamory or polyfidelity; from the perspective I had, it was based in love, and what's wrong with love, right?  I looked at it from a perspective that was distinctly colored and biased from my past experiences in high school and college.

Tonight though I was discussing this topic with a close friend, one of the guitar players in our band, and he made a comment that tripped a memory in my head, and I remembered how Jesus often compares the Christian church (as a body/single entity) to a bride and Himself as a groom, with the goal of illustrating to the Jewish people He was teaching in a way they could identify with.  See, in Jewish culture back then, the groom would go to build a house for his bride, and his bride would wait for him.  The groom's father would be the one to determine when it was good enough, often prompting him to going above and beyond.  As a result, only the father knew when the groom would return, and the bride would have to be ready, because it was ALSO tradition for the groom to come and "steal her away" at some odd hour.  This is exactly how Jesus described His predicted return, so His fellow Jews listening to Him would get the concept.

Now, expanding on that marriage concept, all throughout the Bible, Old and New Testaments included, God has said that He wants no gods other than Him...really, it's the First Commandment, and it's also the first of the summations that Jesus delivered to the people:  "Love God with all your heart, mind and spirit".  To have another god before Him is idolatry, a big no-no for Christians and Jews.  He wants us separate, clean, and faithful, ready for His return, just like the bride in the example above.

And that's why I "get it" now, that polyamory and polyfidelity are just not right for Christians.  Being an Aspy, just being told something is wrong never works; I have to know why, because every situation is different, and a hard/fast rule doesn't always work.  Knowing WHY helps me to adapt to new situations; it gives me a litmus to apply.

Those relationships are the marital equivalent of spiritual idolatry, in essence.  You're being unfaithful to the ONE you chose to be your mate, in place of all the others you COULD have been with...and that's just not the model.

So kids...choose wisely.  Pick the right one.  It's disrespectful to your mate on many levels; even if it "works" outside of a Christian belief system, once you CHOOSE to be in that system, you're willingly forsaking other gods for the One you chose...and that's how you should choose and treat your spouse, too.

Question Everything

One of the things I want to do with this blog is to question everything.

Everything.

I've been told by many people, pastors and laymen alike, that we're to accept God's word, to accept without question, because the Bible is His infallible Word.

I did, for a while.  Unfortunately, I fell into a snare that I would not have believed possible by doing so:  I elevated a Book into the Godhead along with Jesus.

It's the Holy Trinity, not the Holy Quadrangle, right?  Besides...after finding out that some of the 10 Commandments aren't translated right in the first place from the KJV (3rd and 6th), and still not right in later versions (3rd), you tend to question the rest.  Just like I covered in the first post, masturbation isn't a Biblical sin; it's not even considered "wrong" in scripture, in spite of many pastors pounding it from the pulpit (so to speak...)

So, I question.  A lot.  One of the aspects of the Christian faith mentioned by a very intelligent and educated man recently (Hi George!) is to accept some things on faith, to accede to the MYSTERY of certain aspects of the Christian structure, as simple faith is integral as a foundation.  Ok, no problem.  But I'm still questioning a good chunk.

Well, a lot.

Ok, this is going to hack off some people and likely get me called a heretic...but I don't believe the Bible is the ineffable or inerrant Word of God.

I just can't.  You can't expect me to believe the book that is expected to form the structure, the frame to our lives, the spiritual meat (and milk, for some) we need to live on spiritually, the RULES for successful Christian living, the book that is compiled from oral tradition going back to the BEGINNING OF TIME, ancient scrolls and histories written by hundreds of authors spanning millennia, encompassing even personal letters, the book that has taken more forms in Catholic and Protestant bodies, the book that was translated by the orders of King James while he was burning Jews at the stake for being heretics, thereby losing all possible chance for accurate cultural bias or even basic accuracy...you expect me to implicitly and blindly trust that?

Um...no.

Granted, many incorrect spots have been fixed.  Awesome.

So now the original is mostly correct.  Even more awesome.

But it's still not enough.  Cultural and societal bias is almost completely absent, except from some versions like David Stern's Complete Jewish Bible that meticulously includes the relevant cultural bias, as much as it can.

Scriptures that we now understand accurately relate to situations that are no longer relevant in today's world...the books of Ephesians, Colossians, Colossians again, Timothy, Titus, and 1 Peter all give advice the church fathers felt extremely important...about the care and treatment of SLAVES.  Nor does it ever say that slavery is wrong, or that slaves shouldn't be had.  Some translate this to "servants"...but no, even the "servants" then were usually slaves: Debtors, indentured, or outright just BOUGHT.  Not always...but typically.

So, what ELSE applies to then and not now? Murder?  No, that's always been wrong, and still is, although killing in God's name is still in vogue in some countries.  Stealing?  No, always has been wrong, still is...what could...ah.

Wives and concubines.

Men had wives and concubines.  Abraham did.  Isaac did.  Jacob did.  David did.  Solomon did.  *FILL IN THE BLANK* did.  Very common practice; legal, acceptable, normal.

Not today.  Today, having more than one wife or a wife and a girlfriend can get you arrested and accused of all kinds of sinful charges if your church gets wind of it.  All those guys were the Old Testament equivalent of swingers!  Today?  Not so much.

So riddle me this:  What then is sin?  Whose word do you take?  Man? God? The Bible?

Sin hurts.  Sin is something that is a fundamental break in the order of the natural order.  Murder; it ends a life prematurely.  The Jews believe that when you murder, you kill not only that person's life, but the lives of all that person's future family...in essence, a murder kills not a person, but a WORLD.  So, yeah...unnatural.  Wrong.  Sin.

Now, don't be quick to jump on the "No Execution" bandwagon; even God allowed for executing criminals, so just don't go there.  Moving on.


Some things are just obvious, like murder.  Some, like love and sex, aren't so much.  In Acts, James said, 19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."

What is "Sexual Immorality"?  Who defines it?  Topless and nude beaches are the norm in some sections of Europe and South America...try that in Louisiana or Mississippi and see what happens to you.

You can go round and round.  For every hard and fast rule in scripture there are just as many questions and questionable passages.

So what do I do?

I walk out my salvation in fear and trembling, understanding that I have to walk according to my conscience and the Spirit's leading and peace.  I understand that my choices could lead to lack of reward at best, punishment at worst, that I might be "saved as though through fire", saved, but with no reward.  I study for myself; I don't accept to be spoon or bottle fed milk.  I chew into the tougher, harder, meatier things, looking for the deeper truths....for TRUTH.

And also importantly, ROMANS 14!  I will believe or accept some things that a new Christian absolutely can't.  And shouldn't!!  You don't give a baby a steak; they can't chew it or digest it...it would kill them!  The same here...some things, while perhaps not entirely beneficial, aren't necessarily wrong, either...and what's ok for me, might not be ok for you.

That's ok.

I've gone fairly far afield I think from where I started, but that's all right.  I'm just questioning.  Some of my answers won't work for you.  Just remember Romans 14; it's between me and God...

Not me and you.

Dogma Sucks

I have a dogmatic question I don’t understand.  Let’s say you have two people involved in some kind of church ministry; both are actively participating in things the Church at large considers sinful.  One person is remorseful and tries without success to change their behavior and is allowed to still take part; the other sees nothing wrong with what they’re doing, and is asked to step down until they see the error of their ways.

The way I’m seeing this, both people are engaged in wrong behavior without stopping…the only difference is in their thought processes, or as the Church calls it, their heart:  So if I’m understanding this right, it’s not sinning that gets you in trouble, it’s the way you think about it?

Please understand...this isn't a facetious question.

There are some things that I STILL don't "get" after being married for 20 years, and my poor wife just shakes her head and tells me, "It's an Aspy (Asperger's) thing; don't worry about, let it go..."

This might could be one of those things.

For example, this one is perfect.  Since I've been a teenager, I've had no moral issues with polyamory or polyfidelity.  While not socially acceptable almost anywhere, there are subgroups in this country and others that not only practice it, but it works for.

However, from a Christian perspective, this encompasses fornication and adultery AT LEAST.   From this Christian perspective, I can understand from reading that it is considered sin.  Jesus corrected the Samaritan woman at the well about her marital screw-ups (gently, of course), and there is the famous story in John 8:3-11 with the woman caught in the act.

Now, toss in my Aspy brain...in every instance where Jesus deals with adultery, it's the WOMAN that is at fault.  It's not until Paul that the issue is brought up in 1 Corinthians and a male is actually specified as the offender.  In every other case, it's generic with no mention of who is at fault, or it's the woman.

So to my Aspy mind, the definition of adultery hinged upon some definition that only affected women, not men.  Plus, it's never said WHY it's wrong...it just is.  Well, why is it wrong?  If a man lives with two women, and they're all in harmony, taking equal burdens emotionally and physically and even financially in the relationship, what's the big deal?  Or a woman with two men?  Or (scandalous thinking approaching!) two bisexual women and a man? Or two bisexual men with a woman?

Aspy's don't do well with "do it because", because when something happens that doesn't fit the precise circumstance, BOOM, confusion and disarray, questions and chaos.  We need to know why, so we can learn to do things when the norm doesn't fit.

I have to say...Christianity SUCKS for Aspy's.  Everyone is always saying, "The Bible says this, that, and the other thing"...ok, fine, that's great until a little digging shows that it either A: Doesn't say that, B: Is taken out of context so it APPEARS to say that, C: Actually means something else because of translation errors, or D: remembered incorrectly so as to say something else.

So then what?  You dig for the truth, and WHOA, it actually means something else!  Great example: Onanism.  What's that, you ask?  Spanking the monkey, jerking off, choking the chicken...masturbation.  The prohibition comes from Genesis, but the early translations were off, and the church leaders, largely uneducated in many cases in those early years of using that newfangled King James Bible, took the passage (heh) to refer to masturbation, focusing on that "spilling his seed" bit.

Let's see it in a more modern translation:  Genesis 38:8-10 "8 Y'hudah said to Onan, "Go and sleep with your brother's wife - perform the duty of a husband's brother to her, and preserve your brother's line of descent." 9 However, Onan knew that the child would not count as his; so whenever he had intercourse with his brother's wife, he spilled the semen on the ground, so as not to give his brother offspring. 10 What he did was evil from ADONAI's perspective, so he killed him too."

It wasn't the "seed spillin'" that he was struck down for...rather, it was the disobedience of not doing his directed duty that he was killed for.  At that time, if a man's brother died childless, it was his brother's duty to impregnate that man's wife so as to carry on the family.

Do you have ANY IDEA how much less stressful my childhood and early life would've been if I'd known THAT?  That learning the WHY of it, and not the "Don't do it, and just accept it" aspect?

So, yeah...dogma sucks.