Why You Worship a False god (Part One)

Let me just say upfront that I'm probably going to lose a lot of you with this "discussion," and not because of the offensive material but because of the metaphysical material. My experience is that people don't tend to be able to keep up. For example, my first college roommate was a Calvinist (you can look it up), but he was a Calvinist because he didn't understand the doctrine of predestination or what they mean by it. In his mind, since "god" knows everything, "god" also causes everything to happen. There is no free will. Foreknowledge equated control. Basically, "god" was upstairs with puppet strings attached to everything, and no one had any choices about anything.

How boring.

The problem was that he really just couldn't see the difference between foreknowledge and complete predestination (of everything) no matter how many times or how many ways people (not just me) tried to explain it to him. Some of the people who tried to explain it to him also didn't understand the differences in the concepts; they just knew that they had been told that Calvinism was wrong.

I only bring this up because it relates. We're going to talk about God and Time and why your god isn't actually God. And, sure, that part might be offensive, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to lose most of you way before we get far enough along for you to be offended. Unless, of course, you're already offended.

So let's start with something pretty basic:
For god to be God, He has to be outside of time, the maker of Time. That's pretty standard thought nowadays, in theory, at least among "christian" theologians, so I'm probably not losing anyone yet, theoretically. Until we get to the part where we're dealing with what it means to be outside of Time, but I'm not got to get into that, because that's kind of like asking a fish what it's like to be outside of water. And the fact that most of you probably don't get the part where Time is not some linear stream that has always existed.

Maybe you're wondering why that even matters, but it matters in that, for god to be God, He has to be omniscient, and He can't be omniscient from within Time. To know everything, you have to be outside of everything, including Time.

And it matters because of sin.

Before I go on, let me state quite clearly that I am NOT just talking about Christianity here. I'm also talking about Judaism and Islam. It's all the same god, and all three religions suffer from the same issue: sin.

Here's where we start getting tricky...

Men are linear creatures, time-wise; therefore, our views of people tend to be pretty tied into whatever they did last. The quality of a person is based on his/her most recent actions. That's the linear view.

And that's the view religious people, of whatever religion, tend to take, too, hence all of the sin, repent, repeat nonsense. Because you can't go to heaven if you have sin, and you're only as good as your last repentance.

Christianity, theoretically, deals with this issue. Jesus was intended to be the one and only sacrifice that would wipe sin from your life both backwards and forwards. Hebrews 10:10 -- "...we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." The idea for the need for constant repentance (sacrificing) has been dealt with by the one sacrifice of Jesus, so sacrifices are no longer needed. Provided, of course, that you accept the One sacrifice of Christ as your own. This is what the writer of Hebrews is saying. [Note: The writer of the book of Hebrews is unknown, but it was almost certainly NOT Paul. The asshole.]

Of course, the writer of Hebrews couldn't reconcile this idea with himself and, a few verses later, says that, basically, since you've been forgiven of your sins -- all of them past, present, and future -- don't ever sin again. I mean, if you're accepting the grace of God but, then, go out and sin again anyway, you deserve to go to straight to hell. STRAIGHT TO HELL, I tell you! Because he couldn't take himself out of a linear mindset despite the words of Jesus himself claiming to be the one and only sacrifice ever needed.

This is where we run into some problems, because neither Judaism not Islam have any mechanism for dealing with sin in a non-linear fashion. Their god is completely Time-linear and can only deal with men based upon their most recent actions. This causes two problems:
1. You have a man who has lived a horrible, despicable life full of sin and mayhem. The worst possible person you can think of. But, shortly before his death, he "sees the light," repents, offers the appropriate sacrifices, then dies and goes to heaven. [And some of you are saying, "But that's the great power of "god" and his offer of forgiveness to man!]
but...
2. You have a man who has lived a pretty great life of being good and just to other men as much as possible. A true saint among men whom everyone looks up to. But he "stumbles" and commits some sin or other and, before he can repent or make the appropriate sacrifice or whatever, dies suddenly. Because he dies with sin, he is denied heaven. AND GOD CAN'T DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT! Just, oops! That's too bad, but you have sin and can't come in.

Let me tell you, that's the kind of god I want to follow. One who is bound up in his own arbitrary rules and inability to see beyond the same linear timeline as man.

You "Christians" can stop patting yourselves on the back, because, in a lot of ways, you're even worse. Probably in the most important ways, you're worse.
But we'll talk about that next time.

The Religion of Writing: Part Two -- The Hierarchy

Disclaimer: The following example is a paraphrase of the events, so to speak. It's just a general idea of how things happened and how they work and not meant to be exact fact.

Way back in the way back, God had relationships with men on an individual basis. There was God and Adam, God and Methuselah, God and Noah. Then there was God and Abraham, and God and Jacob, and God and Moses. By the time we get to God and Moses, the Hebrews were getting a bit tired of the whole "indie God" scene and wanted a more traditional pub...um, I mean, god, so, to deal with the issue, God gave them some basic guidelines to live by. There weren't too many, because God didn't want to bog everyone down with a bunch of rules, and, really, those rules boiled down to two things: 1. Love God and 2. Be excellent to each other.

But you know people, and they couldn't deal with things being so straightforward, so the agents, I mean priests, got together and made lots of rules. Lots and lots of rules. LOTS and LOTS of rules. So many rules, we've lost track of them all. And you couldn't just join the "Hebrew club" anymore, either. There were lots and lots of rules and tests and all sorts of things you had to do to get on the inside with God. According to the Pharisees, at any rate.

After a while, God got tired of all of that, so He sent his Son down to deal with the people. His son, Jesus, said, "Dudes, no more rules. Just love God and be excellent to each other." Of course, we all know how that turned out. But the apostles understood the message and started spreading the love. Except, almost right away, people started making new rules or re-imposing the old ones and, eventually, along came the Romans and made it all Catholic and stuff, and, pretty soon, there were even more rules than before and, again, no one could just decide to follow God; they all had to jump through special hoops and get rid of all their adverbs and stuff before they were let into the "Catholic club."

After another while, this other dude, Martin Luther, came along and said, "Dudes! Jesus came to get rid of all of these rules. And, oh yeah, the agents, too. We don't need those guys!" Things didn't go well for Martin, either, but a bunch of new small publishers sprang up that, initially, did away with agents (I mean priests), but it wasn't long before they put new agents in place and made all sorts of new rules (like you can't go to Heaven unless you speak in tongues, and dancing will send you straight to Hell).

I'm sure you get the idea.

So let's look at something else.

Way back in the not quite as way back there was a dude that wrote a book. He paid to have some copies printed, then he tried to sell them. Other guys did the same thing. That worked out for some of those guys and not for some of the others. Some guys had more money than others, so they could print more books, and things tended to work out better for them than for the guys that couldn't afford to print very many. There was no such thing as "best seller" back in those days, but some of those books are still around.

Eventually, some poor author (because almost all of them were poor (are poor)) had the bright idea to hire a printer to be his publisher. Since he couldn't pay the guy that owned the printing press in advance, he offered to pay the printer, now his publisher, from the profits from the book. The printer saw the opportunity to make more money than if the writer just paid for the number of copies he could afford and, thus, was born the modern traditional publishing model.

However, I want to point out that when all of this started, the author was in charge. The author communicated directly with his readers, often selling his books to them by hand or taking them to small stores to sell (because there were not, yet, bookstores). The printer/publisher worked for the author, not the other way around. As the idea of being paid from the book profits took hold, the whole process became an invest for the printer/publishers, but, at first, the author was still in control. But the balance of power shifted to the money guys as more and more authors sought out the same publishers. And then came rules. And agents. And more rules. Until the author was at the bottom. No longer communicating directly with... anyone. Except the agentpriest.

And all the people began to worship the traditional publishing house and abide by its rules and jump through its hoops to get inside. Agents really are the priests of the traditional publishers, testing people to see if they're worthy, but, just like it was with the Pharisees (charging for sacrifices and requiring that people only use special "temple money") and the Catholics (selling Indulgences to have your sins forgiven) and the televangelists, it's all about the money.

And, now, we have self-publishing, which is kind of like the Protestant Reformation. And, just like the Catholic church condemned Luther, we have the big traditional publishing houses condemning Amazon and other self publishing outlets and calling people that do self-publish all kinds of bad things.

And we have people clinging to the old model. To the church of Traditional Publishing.

And I have to wonder about what sorts of rules we're going to develop for self-publishing and what kinds of hoops we'll eventually have to jump through for that. Because, well, we humans seem to love our rules and our hierarchies. I guess, that way, we know who's "winning." Charlie Sheen, right? Or is he still winning? I don't know.

I'm not much of one for outdated traditions. Or any traditions that aren't relevant. All of this post has been to say that we ought to really look at what the people "in charge" are telling us and figure what part of it is useful. Because, as far as I can tell, unless you are just in desperate need for the validation that comes from being traditionally published, those guys aren't doing anyone any good. Not anymore. And, hey, really, if you are looking for that pat on the back, I'm sure there are better places to get it.

The Freedom Line

To borrow a line from Spider-Man:
With great freedom comes great responsibility.

But what do you do when some people show that they can not or will not be responsible with the freedom given to them?

That's a tough question and not one I see an easy answer for.

Where do you draw the line between freedom and security? Because, see, I'm all for freedom. Seriously. I believe in it. And I want my own freedom, although you might not be able to tell considering I have three kids. And that's kind of the point, kids bring a responsibility that contain an inherent restriction to Freedom. It's part of the package, and, if you're not ready to give up Freedom for Responsibility, you have no business having kids.

And some of you might be saying, "Yes, but I don't have kids, so why can't I have complete Freedom?" And that is a good question. Honestly, as long as your expression of Freedom doesn't interfere with someone else's expression of Freedom, theoretically, there should be no reason you shouldn't have complete Freedom.

But let's look at that for a moment...

Your expression of Freedom shouldn't and cannot interfere with the Freedom of others. That means your Freedom cannot harm other people. And you might be thinking, "Well, that's just not fair." But is it fair when your Freedom of driving as fast as you want to drive causes an accident that kills someone else? Is it fair when your Freedom to take whatever you want causes someone else not to be able to eat or not to be able to feed his kids? Is it fair when your Freedom to smoke cigarettes results in health issues for other people? Sorry, it's not fair, and these are examples of why we have laws that govern freedom. To help us know where the exercising of our Freedom can cause harm to other people.

And, so, some of you may be thinking "what does this have to do with my Freedom (and Right) to own guns?" And that, also, would be a good question.

I'm gonna sort of change the subject for just a moment but not really. It will only look like it. I just want to start at a different place and bring us back to the same spot. The same question, so to speak.

Jesus came to set us free. I know this because He said it. Most people think this means He came to set us free from sin, that he came so that we could more perfectly follow the Law, but that's not what He said. I'm not going to break down all of the scriptural passages at this point, because it would take too long, so to sum it up, Jesus replaced the Law with Grace. He gave us Freedom, the same kind of Freedom that existed in the Garden before Adam ate of the fruit and introduced the Law (by gaining the knowledge of Good and Evil). [Yeah, I know this is a bit deep and metaphysical, but hang with me for a few minutes.] Basically, what Jesus was saying was, "Look, you can't really do all of this stuff. It's crazy to think that you can, and the Pharisees are crazy for thinking they can. What you really need to do is love God and love people, and, if you do those things, you'll be okay." Basically, forget the Law.

Okay, so we're in a state of complete Freedom at that point. We can (kind of) do whatever we want. Some of the early Christians really went with this, too. There was a movement that Right and Wrong no longer existed and anyone could do whatever s/he wanted to do. The problem was, evidently, these people didn't care whom they hurt in the process. Freedom was their Right and by God they were going to exercise that Freedom.

Paul came along and clarified some things at that point and said, basically, "Sure, in theory, you guys are correct, you can do whatever you want to do, but you shouldn't. You still need to respect other people, because, if you don't respect other people, you aren't showing them love, and Jesus said to love them just like you love yourselves." Even Peter had a problem with all of this stuff, because he realized (with God's help) that he didn't have to follow all of the Jewish dietary restrictions; he could eat just like the gentiles. And, boy, did he go hog wild (pun intended) with it. The problem was that he started bragging about it, and some of the Jews that didn't believe the way he did started having issues with the whole thing.

Paul had to step in there, too, and slap some sense into Peter: "Look, Dude, you know it's okay to eat pig, and I know it's okay to eat pig, but all these other guys... they don't know that, yet. What you're doing is messing them up and making them do things they believe are wrong. You're hurting them." Essentially, what Paul was saying is that eating pig for these other guys was wrong because they believed it was wrong.

And this... this is a really sticky issue, the difference between what is right and what is wrong, and it's why there is such a huge divide in the USA, right now. Some people, a lot of people, still believe that eating the metaphoric pig is WRONG. But that's actually beside the point.

Because the real point is this, and this is where we go back to those other questions I was asking up above:
Paul said that the way to deal with this issue of how to behave when you believe that something is okay but someone else does not is not to do it. If what you want to do, even if you believe it's completely okay and right to do, is going to hurt someone else because they believe it's wrong, you should give up your Freedom to do that thing by taking up the Responsibility to act in a loving manner to that other person so that other person will not be tempted to do something s/he believes is wrong.

In the pig example, a lot of the Christian Jews started eating piggies because they saw Peter doing it, but they all believed it was wrong, that it was a sin, so they were wracked with guilt over it. The point is that, for them, it was wrong to do because they believed it was wrong to do (and I'm gonna stay away from anymore of the relativity of good and evil in this post). Peter needed to stop eating pork (at least when he was with other Hebrews) and quit bragging about it so that he wouldn't cause his fellow Jews to stumble over their own beliefs. We're not all at the same spot in the journey.

Do I think you should have the Freedom to own a gun? Sure. Do I think you should have the Freedom to own any kind of gun you want to own? Sure. I believe those things as long as you are going to be responsible in your Freedom to not hurt other people. To not take away their Freedom with your Freedom (because none of us have that Freedom, especially the freedom to end a life).

The problem here is that too many people in our society currently cannot use their freedom to own a gun responsibly. Too many people are being caused to stumble and do wrong because they have the freedom to own a gun. Too many people are taking away other people's freedom by doing them harm. Clearly, these people are just like the Jews that saw Peter eating pork and ate it too even though they believed it was wrong. To keep these people from doing the wrong thing, according to Paul, we should willingly lay aside our freedom so that they will not do what is wrong. We should choose Responsibility over Freedom.

And that's kind of where I come down on this whole gun thing at this point. I look at my kids and I wonder which is the higher Freedom: your freedom to own a gun or my kids' freedom to live. I look at all the kids and wonder that. What was the higher Freedom, the lives of 20 kids (and half a dozen adults) or the Right (Freedom) of one person to own some assault weapons? I ask that question all the time. What is my Freedom worth?

I have to tell you, I have laid aside an awful lot of Freedom for the sake of my children. I have laid aside an awful lot of Freedom for the sake of other people's children. I don't have a problem with this. I get that some of you do, but I have to wonder if you're looking at the issue from the correct standpoint. If my Freedom is going to cause someone else to screw up, I need to go to the higher place of Love and abandon my Freedom. Why? Love God and love people. If I'm willing to sacrifice other people so that I can get to do whatever it is I want to do that certainly isn't Love. If I'm willing to sacrifice your children or, even, my own children, so that I can live the way I want to live, that certainly isn't Love.

And, you know what, that extends to owning firearms. If other people cannot act responsibly within their Freedom to own a gun, then we all should be willing to lay aside that freedom so that those other people will not screw up. Just like we have to sacrifice the freedom of driving as fast as we want to drive to prevent accidents and just like we have to sacrifice the freedom of taking whatever we want because it harms someone else and just like... well, I could go on and on.

Is your freedom to own a gun worth the life of someone else? Just one life? Is it? Really? I see some of you out there right now saying, "Yes, it is." Well, whose life is it going to be? My kid's? Your kid's? Your brother's or your mother's? Is it worth it now? If you're out there and you're willing to sacrifice the life of someone dear to you just so that you can own a gun, let me know. Because it may not actually be someone dear to you, but it's going to be someone dear to someone else, and, tell me, is that fair? Is it?