Can God be better understood by looking at who is happiest?

People who hold to a belief that the other is evil are shown to be statistically less happy than people who see good in the other.

People who hold to legalism of prohibition are less happy.

People who invest in friends / family and live in 'the grove' are happier.

Christ came to teach:
  Grace
  Love Others
  Compassion 
  Community


In experiencing the license of grace, NOT legalism of prohibition,  real transformation and happiness is possible.

two observations about emergent christianity

Observation:  Emergent Christian leaders seem a lot more interested in fighting about why they don't we have more minority leaders in the emergent church than they do talking about why so many people are hungry in the world.

Observation:  Solomon's Porch is a place w/o a preacher.  It is up to me to read the bible (in community).  I miss the preacher.  I have started to attend Revolution to hear Jay Bakker preach.  If I think the preacher believes what he is saying I don't have to.

Love is a state, it is no longer a 1 for the 0 to scapegoat.

Computational scientists generally accept the minimum time for an algorithm to be considered 'efficient' is that its running time is polynomial:  O(n^c) where n is the size of the input….. 95% of computational scientists work in this space…  They call the stuff that doesn't compute as "easily" NP-Hard… really that just means they haven't figured out a good way to solve the issue in polynomial time.  5% of computational scientists work in this space.  They tend to share an office with an applied mathematician.  This is where 'big money' and 'big data' meets 'big science'.

I've never bought into the theory that stuff is either Polynomial or P!=NP … My gut says it is because Turing machines are fundamentally fond of polynomials. To make P=NP it may be best to use a non Turing architecture. The good news is that I don't publish or study computational sciences so my total lack of understanding of the space lets me not give a fuck if I'm right or wrong.  My belief is that the basic binary approach of modern computer systems is what is making us scared of traveling sales men … WTF do I mean by that you ask?  It means that modern computer systems think in ones and zeros and only know how to do some base operators on those ones and zeros (even CISC and vector processors are still reduced down to 1 and 0 of a transistor ...)… At the root of all computer operations is the need to calculate and store a one or a zero result in a register…. Hence why most computational sciences has a run-time if polynomial.  Because at its core so is a microprocessor (pun intended).  Let's put a pin in that idea.

What if we had a computational system that was not based on a Turing architecture but instead could use algorithms that didn't need intermediate resolution… what if we had an architecture to store a equation state and compare it to another equation state without ever calculating or resolving either state or even the final resolution… I hear of three options to solve P!=NP problems and #2 is 'innovative':

1) The current computer architecture scales out to the point the calculation capability overcomes the need for efficiency… an example of this would be the the latest heterogeneous HPC architecture.  In these systems a relatively limitless number (think millions) of cell processors (Playstation3 volume has made them super cheap) lightly coupled via FPGA directly to an infiniband backbone.  In short, the system has a relatively limitless amount of vector processing capabilities.  The system can take a sloppy algorithmic approach of "dropping it's unit on the table" and just calculate the vector space around any vectorized input (NLP, etc).  Rainbow table based cracking isn't cracking... it is just a form of bruit force. This is just slightly more intelligent than that... but not much.

2)  What if we go way outside the box and build a new architecture that is not based on 1 or 0.  Two examples would be:  1) Quantum computer,  2) Bio-Computer.  In these systems rather than having a 0 or a 1 the computational system is based on two input equation states and storing a result without necessarily being able to calculate or resolve either input function.  Clearly not polynomial.  If one is calculating the NP-Hard problem of "cliches" one could imagine all sorts of ways to do this within biological systems.

3)  Fuck… I forgot what the third option was.. it was based on extreme parallel Processor In Memory in a model that was similar to a neurological system.  However the more I think about that it sounds like #1 above…

Early in my career… back when I did real work … I helped build 'big' systems (#1 above) … I started my afternoon trying to read a paper on emerging architectures in the 2nd space… but it's been a few hours and I'm on page 2…

The last few years I've been focused on how a modern understanding of reality (understand something before you believe it) has evolved into post-modern understanding that Truth is relative to the point Truth is not an answer but can have an expression based on a question…


Summary:  Modern computer architecture is like modern philosophy and emerging alternative architectures (Quantum/bio) are analogous to post-modern philosophy and function of 'love' in emergent christianity…

Love is a state, it is no longer a 1 for the 0 to scapegoat.

My favorite IoG13 quotes

Pete Quotes

“You are in your house weeping – collecting urine in bottles”

“The kid gets the puppy.  Forgets to feed it.  Dad makes him watch as he drowns it in the tub”

“If you have limitless resources you will take holidays in the Bahamas.  After you have done three or four of those you get bored and rob a bank.”

 “If you want a religious experience take drugs and go to a football match”

Barry Quotes

“I’ve seen behind the curtain and the wizard is a very short man”

 “Why is Justin Timberlake selling a million albums, and David Bowie is selling a few thousand?  Something is wrong with the universe & brilliance of packaging”

Jay Quotes

“You dropped something” – in response to Barry’s sharing he worked for AC/DC

Day 5 of IoG13: winding down

Most of the morning was a discussion about the death of the theistic God and how to help people in that transition.  We also discussed the purpose of prayer (it helps the person praying).  Frankly I think we have spent as much time in psychoanalysis this week as we have exploring radical theology.  Some examples of how to create space where people can practice this sort of radical theology:

·      Broken Liturgy . Trying to draw people in.  Not entertain.  Not give them an answer.  Instead draw them in to help them look deep inside themselves.  Not give them a God.  If anything it is to help them question the God they have made.  Face the suffering.

·      RevolutionNYC . Speaker.  Open about doubt.  Allows questions and doesn’t force a truth. 

·      IKON .Transformance art

I had a wonderful lunch with Katherine Moody.  She has a great mind.  We talked a little about her research and she answered one of my questions.  It wasn’t the answer I hoped for.  But she was honest.  So it is my job to go back home and change her answer.

Notes from IoG Day 4: Thoughts on theology and my resulting thoughts on polygraphs and strippers

-->

Observation 12: It is OK to explore changes in theology … just be careful

Barry Taylor shared Pitirim Sorokin’s philosophy and Berry’s opinion that we are in a sensate period. Sorokin classified societies according to their 'cultural mentality', which can be "ideational" (reality is spiritual), "sensate" (reality is material), or "idealistic" (a synthesis of the two). He also shared that Marshall Mcluhan views on technology change the world.  

Barry shared that we live in a different environment than past ages.  God is still just as unknown and unfathomable as He always has been, but we have changed.   Barry asserts if you want to redefine Christianity, you have to go back to Paul.  Barry is looking at reviewing the Christian theology.  According to Barry the thing we think is least in need of change - the story of our faith - is the thing that needs to change the most.  Christianity is willing to change its forms a million times over, just so we can avoid having to change the story we're telling. The focus of Barry's talks was not on reviewing the practice of Christianity, but the theology.  I think we need to review both practice and theology.  But this talk was about changing the theology.  Clearly most Christian’s are afraid of discussing changes to the theology. The emerging change to theology is not a change to God, but a change to how we understand God.

Paul’s initial interaction with Christianity is that he was struck blind.  Barry’s reinterpretation of Paul is focused on Paul’s three days of blindness, not about seeing.  Paul had to begin again in darkness.  The darkness disempowers Paul.  There is always an outsider… that is where God is.  We are all broken.  As we come to an understanding of brokenness in ourselves we can accept the other person.

“If I ever become a Saint — I surely be one of ‘darkness’. I will continually be absent from Heaven — to light the light of those in darkness on earth.” – Mother Teresa

Barry/Pete had a discussion about sin not being a moral failure, but rather a “failure to look at your own brokenness.  It is the pursuit of anything good/bad that prevents you from looking at your own darkness.”  I see sin as the moral failure that is not choosing to do good for the benefit of the other even at the expense of yourself by overcoming (accepting) your darkness.  For me it is the failure to love the other, not the pursuit to overcome darkness of self.  Maybe it is the same thing, but I don’t think so.  I can be OK with my own darkness (I think I just admitted to being a narcissistic sociopath).  Some of the greatest change happens when you realize you can’t change and that is OK (grace).  My darkness is not the area of focus for me… the area of focus for me is focus on helping the other.  I suck at that.  When done correctly (Kingdom of God) I can help others overcome their darkness, and they help me overcome my darkness.  But first I dismissed my darkness and love the other. For me sin, is failing to selflessly help the other.

I have inner darkness. I’m being really honest here and it will probably get me in trouble…. I’ve had a strange relationship with my internal darkness.  Given that for most of my adult life I have had take a “lifestyle polygraph” two times a year where nothing is off limits (perverse sexual preferences, etc) and admit my inner darkness to some stranger from the US Department of Defense who cataloged it in a computer… I have had to learn that my inner darkness is just part of me.  For the last 5 years I had to adjudicate other peoples confessions.  After 20 years of openly talking about my inner darkness I found nothing to be emotionally ashamed of, just intellectually aware of (I am very dark… so this isn’t a dismissal because I have ‘good character’… it is a statement of being OK with my darkness).  If you are not aware of your darkness, I suggest sitting for a lifestyle polygraph.  It can be liberating to have to face how dark you really are.   I find it ironic that to get access to a nations greatest secrets one must be willing to have no secrets of their own.  But I don’t think sin is being unable to except ones darkness, I think it is failing to act in kindness to the other at the expense of self.

Here is an example:  I can totally accept my desire to go see naked women dance (strippers).  While I have no issue with that desire, others may call it darkness.  Frankly I don’t have issues with strippers, if that is what they want to do with their time.  However, I’m married and know it upsets my wife if I even go to the strip club.  To me the sin is not desiring to see a stripper, seeing a stripper, or stripping.  The sin is failing to love my wife enough to give up something I want because it is hurts her. 

Yes, I sin.  I can be a real prick (especially at work).  When I do it bothers me.  God has grace.  This bothers me more because it doesn’t feel justified.  But I have to acknowledge it and use that acknowledgment to share it with others.

Question 2:  Is sin the failure to look at ones own brokenness, or is sin the failure to love others over self?

Pete also talked about if the crucifixion was not (just?) an atonement but an event to demonstrate the removal of all cultural identities (when people were crucified their cultural, social and religious titles and identities were stripped from them).   

We spent the afternoon in workshops.  I attended on on magic.  It was awesome.  After dinner we are going to hear Katherine Moody talk.  Sadly I won't have my laptop to take notes as we are going to a concert (Duke Special and John Hardt) directly following Katherine's talk.  I'm excited to hear Katherine talk because I hope she will be able to shed some light on Question #1.

IoG Day 3: Rehab, Denial causing desire, Magic & Others

This morning we were asked to share why we are attending the conference, here are some answers:

1)   To learn the words to express non-theistic theism.

2)   To see and participate in a space of transformance art (IKON) where different opinions are encouraged and respected

3)   Understand the intersection between Psychoanalysis and Religion

4)   It is hard to find people in the middle ground between giving up in faith and repressing ones doubt

5)   I feel like I’m the only kid who doesn’t believe in Santa Clause any more and don’t want to ruin it for the other kids.

Observation #9  Is Radical / Emergent Theology ‘rehab for Christians’ or is it a new view on Christ’s message?

Personally, I have radical doubts about God, but a faith in God that transcends the theistic idea of God.  I don’t understand how somebody without a theistic God to cast doubt upon moves into the same space I find myself in.  If this is closer to a Truth (capital T) than mainstream Christianity … does it attract outsiders? 

Question 1:  What fraction of people attracted to Radical Theology are hung-over Christians vs. people new to faith?

Pete’s explanation on how to read Pete’s stuff…

Observation #10:  Denial causes desire

Adam and Eve are walking around.  They were given one prohibition (don’t eat of the tree of the knowledge-of-good-and-evil).  What makes the tree magical?  The prohibition is what makes it powerful (the pleasure is created by denial).  The prohibition of saying “you can’t have this” creates something beautiful.

 

When you have a drive of desire it will cause you to work against yourselves.  At times we are like zombies in our pursuits (Zombies have a self-detrimental desire for human flesh).  Superego injunction to enjoy. "Like it or not, enjoy yourself!" (Zizek).

What one sees play out in the book of Genesis is the excessive drive for the prohibited.  It is not the prohibited that is evil, it is the desire created by the prohibition that is evil.  

Six months after we are born we have our subjective birth of self (mirror test). This birth is when we lose our connectedness and grow our isolation.  We have an awareness of self and therefore an awareness of non-self.  We spend our lives trying to re-fill that connectedness.

To bridge the gap we create a theistic God.  An Idol.   

Observation #11:  Magic and Pete are hard to understand

In a community where you say “you don’t have to change, you are accepted” creates an environment where you can move past the idol and into a space where you can truly desire to care for somebody else and God.  Not out of a legalistic requirement, but because of a true desire to care.

Legalistic Barrier à Do whatever you want à Desire to share grace with others

Everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial.

Pete tried to explain Genesis as kind of like a magic trick.  It has the three main parts of a magic trick; Pledge, Turn & Prestige.  I didn’t really track him on this.

The idol exists until you get it.  Love doesn’t exist until you love.  Its characteristics are in many ways opposite of the idol.

I think Pete is saying Christianity that uses the idol of God is missing the point and   Jesus came to show that.  The big reveal was at his crucifixion when the curtain in the temple ripped open and nothing was there.  Jesus didn’t show us an Idol inside the temple He said and demonstrated love. 

I think he is saying a Christianity with a idealistic/theistic God is like a magic trick gone wrong.

I think Pete’s view on Christology is an invitation into a different mode of life.  It is not a mode of belief in an idolistic God.  It is an invitation into the destruction of the idol.  It is an invitation into a life of loving others.  God/Jesus came to show that. 

  

The crucifixion is not the good news that our debt has been paid or satisfied. The crucifixion reveals that the system of debt is forgotten.

If you start to question the structure you get asked to leave.

Gap 1 (Don’t accept) “I am not telling you depressing things, I’m telling you that you are already depressed”

Gap 2 (Acceptance) Nothing is going to sort it out.  This is the belief in God that transcends the idea of God.

Gap 3 (accept) This is the peace of finding the depth in our life by love.  Love is complex & helps embrace the infinite depth of experience.

Rather than distancing the other (gay, race, how/what to believe) Christianity is the calling to embrace the other.   At the core of Christianity is “Love your neighbor as yourself” 

·      To love yourself means to be able to come to terms with your own internal otherness (antagonisms and doubt) … then that will mean you will be able to bare the other.

·      To love yourself means accept your gap, which allows you to embrace the gap in the other.

·      If to 'love yourself' means to embrace the other in yourself (the disavowed) you become more able to love the other in other people.

In order to open yourself up to the other you have to be able to see yourself through their eyes.

Interfaith dialogs can only go so far.  We either try to convert, reject or ignore.  In all these “I am right.”  In an experience where you place yourself subservient to the other, you can see yourself through their eyes.  When this happens you can start to love the other, rather than try to overcome the other.  It is not about scapegoating the other, fighting the other or overcoming the other.  It is about seeing yourself through the eyes of the other, so you can love the other.

You can take down the peacewalls (see Observation #5) however if the people on the sides of the walls are not ready to embrace the others, it will do no good.

In current Christianity:  God is put up as the object that makes us happy.  God is the object that justifies our tribal identities.

What if Christianity’s purpose should be; we give up the Idol and the limits to our tribal identities … embrace the nothingness and the other.  The other becomes the instrument of our further conversion.  This seems to be the core of Christ’s message.


Sadly I became a walking dead after lunch.  Seriously despite people around me talking I have no idea what they were saying.  I was that tired.  I took a nap instead of dinner and then watched the movie http://kumaremovie.com/ with the rest of the crew.


Update:  In Observation #1 I came up with two categories of participants (folks who have not come out yet, and folks who don’t want to be branded as “Christian”).  Last night I met another one of the participants who is in a third category.  She is a pastor who values liturgy of a more mainstream Christianity (“mainstream” at least being a place that support female pastors). 

IoG Day 2 journal: Peacewalls, Funeral by Tillich, some Christians are pricks, & Jay Bakker’s broken record of scandalous Grace.

Observation #4:  My own Peacewall

I learned today that walls separate many of the neighborhoods in Ireland. Kind of like walls around a castle.  Each time a conflict between communities would happen and some peace would be declared, they would build a wall between the communities.  The term “Peacewall” is kind of an oxymoron to me…. But in many ways it is really symbolic of how when we avoid building relationships with the other, but instead isolate ourselves from people with different views… we don’t grow understanding we just have temporary isolation from the conflict.

I have to call myself out on this… in yesterday’s post I admitted to my “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” policy with respect to sharing my doubts with my loved ones in mainstream Christianity.  I just avoid the conflict with my own peacewall.

Observation #5:  Two sides of the same wall

Some of the peacewalls are huge.  Here is a photo of one of the walls.  This side contains an art mural for the future and the other side is a memorial of the past. Will holding onto the past limit forward progress?  Will creating art on the wall cause something that must be curated, rather than simply taken down?

Are our fundamentalist brothers holding onto murals of legacy Christianity?

Are our emergent brothers curating an identity around philosophy and art?

Are we building walls rather than community?

Observation #6: Paul Tillich just hosted my funeral

The IKON event was interesting.  The shared experience was about death and decay.  It isn’t really possible to convey a shared experience of performance art.   The closest thing to explain it is Paul Tillich’s book “A Courage to Be”.

Another observation… Irish people can be deeply depressing.

Observation #7:  Christian’s can be pricks to each other

Jay Bakker shared stories of his childhood.  I really felt for him when he was sharing the loss of his childhood.  When Pat Robertson auctioned off his childhood possessions, when his friend “Tommy” left.  When Christians idolized his parents and wanted to spend time with them, but then the political bomb went off and treated them like pariahs.  He was left home to watch it on television.

Observation #8:  Grace wins

In the way Rob Bell would say “Love Wins”… Jay Bakker is living evidence that “Grace Wins”.  He was grilled by award winning BBC reporter William Crawley.  Grilled. Regardless of the backstabbing Jay experienced from Christians in his childhood he is a broken record when it comes to grace.  He is open with his doubt (even referencing Bart Ehrman and some less superficial stuff).  He was open with his lack of understanding.  Jay holds on to Jesus and holds on to Paul and shares his doubts about God.  He was openly doubtful...  At one point Jay was asked by Crawley, "Why don't you just become a civil rights activist?" ... his response was "Grace keeps pulling me back in."  One thing Jay was clear about… Jay clearly believes in a radical grace.  A grace that transcends theology.


The interview isn't done... I'm sure more brilliance will be shared but I've got to shut down... the laptop battery is about dead and I have to go to the bathroom to return a Guinness I have rented.

IoG Day 1: Fight Club, Open Mind & Rehab

-->

Most vacations involve some sort of trip journal for me… as this is an atypical vacation, this will undoubtedly be an atypical trip journal.

My first observation is the Irish are very welcoming.  Each person I ask directions from stops and answers.  Of course I have almost died 3 times while crossing the road (I keep forgetting they drive on the left side of the road here).

The pub conversations are lively and engaging.  Most people ask me “What brings you to Ireland?”  I still don’t have a good answer.  Once, I tried the honest answer, “I read some guys book.  I liked it.  I met some people on the Internet, and we all decided to meet up in Belfast.”  His response was, “I hope they don’t kill you.  The Internet is full of crazy people and flying across the ocean to meet an author sounds like you are crazy.”  I admire the Irish dry humor. 

Last night was our first event for IoG.  We met The Duke of York pub to get to know each other.  Given the conversations, this is going to be an interesting week.  The diversity of people here is really phenomenal. 

Observation #1:  First rule of IoG: Don’t talk about IoG.

I hope my journal will not violate anybody’s trust.  One of my first observations was many of the participants were not comfortable with others knowing they were at this event.  Not all, but enough that posting names & photos of participants would be poor judgment.  The reasons seems to fall into two camps:

1)   Some of us haven’t come out of the closet yet about our doubt.

Regardless of if I call it “emergent”, “progressive” or “doubt”… many participants have friends and colleagues in mainstream Christendom that would judge them as “unholy” for participating in an event like this.  Sadly, I’ve seen too many people who explore this “emergent” faith trolled by mainstream Christians on the Internet.  Some of the participants at this conference work in mainstream Christianity and are frankly scared of the Internet trolls who don’t show grace.

While I’ve never been trolled for this… I can personally identify with the concerns.  I came out to my parents (conservative Christians) about my emergent faith earlier this week when they asked me “what are you going to Ireland for?” The instant response was “I’ve read about emergent Christianity”… we immediately moved to the don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy and started talking about the weather. My heart is heavy that I can’t have a real conversation about what I’m going through with people I love.

2)   Concerned colleagues will think they are a crazy Christian

Some of the participants, myself included, have circles of friends and co-workers that look down on somebody with faith.  I love where I work. I work at one of the most tolerant places in the world.  A public University.  People will fight openly for equality of any race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion… any religion except Christianity.  Christianity is too “mainstream” and frankly has done some pretty horrible shit in the name of God.  Where I work the only label that really causes reputational harm is “Christian”, the other labels are badges of honor and intellect.

 

Observation #2:  Keep an open mind

I had some mind-blowing conversations last night.  One moment I was talking with an individual who asserted witnessing a miracle.  The next I was talking to a person who doubted the Christianity they grew up in, and flew here because she wanted a safe place where she could ask questions and experience her doubt without judgment.  I pray that participants will grow comfortable with their doubts.  I pray they will keep an open mind.  I pray they will return home and be a safe harbor for others to express their doubts.  God is big enough for our doubts.  I’m pretty sure he can handle it.

Observation #3:  Christians in Rehab

Everybody I talked to last night had a story that went something like “I was a pastor…” or “I grew up a fundamentalist…” or “My parents thought me Christianity…” and then ended with “… I have doubts about the rules and rituals but still believe in the same God”. 

I only got to talk to about 10% of the participants… but I wonder if anybody goes from agnostic/atheist into ___ (what do you call whatever this is? Progressive?  Emergent?  Radical?)… or if people in whatever this is are just Christians in Rehab.

Enough for now… I’m sitting at a café and it is obvious the waitress wants me to turn off my computer… How American of her…

Book review of Faith, Doubt, and Other lines I've crossed by Jay Bakker

-->
I just left a party to go to my hotel to read the last chapter of Jay Bakker’s book “Faith, Doubt, and Other lines I’ve crossed”.  I’ve had the chance to meet Jay in Minneapolis a few weeks ago.  Kind of an odd duck.  Nice guy.  He told me to read Tillich.  I did.  My brain hurts.  But I forgive Jay.

As for Jay’s book.  It is awesome.  I was half way into the book on the bus from Belfast to Dublin this morning when I started texting my best friend.  The texts went something like:

·      “I’m ordering you Jay Bakker’s new book.  Read it.”

·      “Hard copy sent… couldn’t figure out how to order it for your kindle since my kindle already owns it… stupid technology”

·      “Awesome book.  Heart of Francis Chan.  Head of Peter Rollins (but a lot more understandable)” Sorry Pete.

I then start texting him photos of pages of the book (apologies to Jay's copyright lawyer).  Specifically the part about the church’s view of Mathew 18 being the antithesis of 2 Corinthians 13 (my buddy got to ‘experience’ that in front of a body of “believers” who were doing “God’s will”).

Jay talks about what scandalous, vulgar grace is like.  If you are looking for a book to affirm a certain, doubtless, inerrant view of Christianity…. this is not a book for you.  But if you struggle, doubt or are looking for a deeper relationship with God than the theistic god created in church … this is a great book.  Jay doesn’t apologize for doubting.  His God is big enough.  Jay doesn’t apologize for extending grace to “sinners” and not worrying about if they are “holy” enough.  His God is big enough.  It is vulgar.  NC17 stuff.

The one reason I give it 4 out of 5 starts is because Jay has a long segway in the middle part of the book about affirming LGBTQ in the church.  For me, LGBTQ is a label and that label is not sinful.  A person loving another person, regardless of gender, is not sin… that is just about as stupid as saying my wife is my property.  I don’t like labels.  I understand we want to call one label good and one label bad.  The problem is that I’m as undeserving of God’s grace as the founder of the North American Man Boy Love Association (a pedophile advocacy group).  But that is how scandalous God’s grace is…

All in all … this is an awesome book.  I’ve already ordered 3 copies today for different friends.  It is clearly one for a ‘book club’ and/or discussion group.  I can only imagine how much fun it would be to talk about “you mean Jesus was talking about that guy when he was saying love everybody?  But that guys a prick… “  Scandalous.  Truly Scandalous.

Diagram of frankenweenie

I think in abstract pictures.  I'm still trying to mentally work my way through my last post.  These pictures help me, but I think they are less accurate than the last post.

as-is diagram:

to-be diagram:

For me "God" is a state that exists in the red box.  

This morning I had a discussion with a friend about knowing "God". His assertion was that God can be known (at least in part). I'm still of the opinion that God is not a 'known' but a state expressed in something analogous to a wave function of unconditional love & scandalous grace. Similar to Plato's cave... I can only understand the shadows on the wall, and not know the True character of God.

The dialog started with somebody at the table asserting that if compassion for a sinner harms the one the sin is against the act is unjust. The example of the prodigal son returning and how killing the fattened calf took away something from the good son that stayed home. I think the assertion that the good son is being wronged is antithetical to 'unconditional love/grade' and therefore the person asserting the moral high ground is not as holy as they would think they are.... I'm sure none of this makes sense.  I can also see the other side:

• Was the 'holier person' wronged when something was taken from them (the calf) to give to the unholy / misbehaving prodigal son? By social norms; yes. There is a truth to that wronging that I have to acknowledge.

• Was the loving gay couple wronged when they were told they can't marry in the church they attend?  By social norms; yes.  There is a truth to that wronging that I have to acknowledge.

However in the state of Truth (capital T) another behavior that is also wrong is the hard-heart of the holy person who is failing to provide unconditional love and scandalous grace to the other.  Humans can’t act in a state of Truth all the time.  We can aspire … I am an expert at failing at living in this state…  my point is ... we are all unholy.  My point is that for me, God is not a 'known' but a unrealizable state based on a shadow on the wall.

Frankenweenie, life's purpose, God, and other existential ramblings

In 2013 America it is the norm to work-hard and play-hard, not because we are more industrious or playful than our ancestors but because we are on a treadmill that keeps speeding up. When I take a moment to pause the treadmill, I notice the silliness of our actions, and far worse I hear the sound of my own anxiety and fear of standing still.

The total anxiety found in staring down meaninglessness in that stillness is beyond my ability to deal with for anything but a brief moment.

I guess many ages ago when the treadmill was slower, people would slow down more often and turn to religion in these moments of anxiety. The old theologies and pieties offered certainties which I can't believe in light of modernity. During this age modernity has unhorsed the god of theism and the treadmill has accelerated to the point we have lost our societal ability for existential exploration. At the dawn of the post-modern age I don't find it viable to believe in the emotional arguments based on pre-modern fundamentals.

When I step off the treadmill and experience the bone chilling anxiety of nothing, I have to find a hope that appears when the situation is beyond hope.  If I concentrate long enough and dig deep enough I can experience a moment of staring at my being.  In that anxious moment I either succumb to the depressive nothingness or I start to reach out to the theistic god of my youth.  But that god is an idol I have made to comfort me. Post-Modern religion will not be tied to the idolatrous version of deus ex machina but rather a belief in a something greater than the god of theism.  

In that moment of existential crisis caused by staring down my non-being, my being feels separated—separated from others and separated from my being itself. Simply separated.  During this moment, the courage to accept myself or act in a way that benefits others to the detriment of myself requires faith. Not the faith of a promised reciprocation, but the faith that the grace I extend in love is enough. Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. lived it. This is like the love I have for my wife of 20 years. I do not love her unconditionally because she reciprocates my love for her; I simply love her unconditionally. This grace I extend is in concert with a grace I experience by choosing to be accepted. This choice is not by a rational reason, but simply the choice that I am accepted and the courage to be while staring directly at my meaninglessness. I am accepting being accepted by something greater than me, the name of which I do not know.  Frankly I don't care what it is called: god/God/Jesus/frankenweenie. My absolute faith is not a theoretical affirmation of this uncertainty; it is the existential acceptance of something transcending ordinary experience.  My faith is not an opinion but a state.  I can affirm myself because I know I am affirmed by the power of being. I have a radical doubt about God, but a faith in God that transcends the theistic idea of God.

The core of the Christian messages resonates with my analysis of my human experience. Not the dogmatic and liturgical codes of modern christendom.... but the core of the Pauline message of justification by faith and the Jesus message for me to love others even if they don't reciprocate because I have faith in being accepted by something greater (Frankenweenie?).  I'm sure other religions that I have not studied would resonate as well, but I was raised in the Christian faith, lost it, and now found a way to use it that is meaningful to me. 

Acknowledgments:  Ben for editing this and making it look like I attended college by fixing my random punctuation.  To Francis Chan for introducing me to a crazy love and Davis Mitchell for demonstrating what it looks like. To Peter Rollings for helping me recognize my idols of certainty. To Doug Pagitt for introducing me to Tony Jones.  To Tony Jones for introducing me to Jay Bakker.  To Jay Bakker for introducing me to Paul Tillich.  To Paul Tillich for showing me the courage to be.