|
heyheybaby95
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Carlos
Country: United States
State: Pennsylvania
Metro: Lebanon
Interests: my wife, art, dancing, reading, contemplating, philosophy, theology, politics, sociology, humanities...oh yeah, and God.
Expertise: painting, drawing, graphic design
Occupation: Graphic Designer
Industry: Art
Message: message meEmail: email me
AIM:  walkinglikejc
MSN: kjv_rebel
Yahoo:  xwalklikejcx
Member Since:
1/5/2004
|
|
| God is an African American WomanI have to admit, I was surprised along with Mack when he stepped into the Shack expecting a white grandfather figure only to be greeted by a big African American woman, claiming herself to be God Almighty. I could see why some Christians harshly criticized "The Shack" for this kind of blatant heresy--these are not my words. I would imagine some stopped reading altogether, thinking the rest of the story would proceed to push down our throats a postevangelical/liberal agenda. However, for those who kept reading the story, they soon found out that God "revealed" Himself/Herself as an African American woman only so that Mack's preconceived notions of God would not interfere with His "true" essence, of which is neither black nor white, male nor female. And in some strange but powerful irony, Mack and the other two persons of the Trinity call this Black Woman, Papa, or as we Americans would say, "Daddy".
The author of the novel is fairly conservative, so doctrines such as Creation, Original Sin and the Trinity are upheld. But he expresses those doctrines rather differently, which makes them less complicated, and for a person who swings a little bit on the liberal side of theology like myself, he makes them rather compelling. One thing that some Christians do not like from "The Shack" is the author's use of doctrine of Kenosis to explain Jesus' humanity, which upholds that God limited Himself from His power so that He could become man. In other words, Jesus performed His miracles and wonders not as God but as a man who trusted in God to perform such miracles through him.
I recommend "The Shack" to all people, believers of God or not. It's a very powerful and emotional book that is deceitfully simple yet so beautifully deep it will leave you craving for a Presence that is sometimes too good to be true.
1:11 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit - Remove | | |
| CondomsMaybe Christians should talk about practicing safe sex. I'm all for
abstinence, I really am, and I believe that sex should be reserved for
marriage. Not only do I believe it to be a Biblical mandate, I believe
it would save anyone psychological and emotional heartache. However,
I'm not naive to think that every kid is going to devotedly heed my
advice and keep his junk in the trunk. Abstinence is to be the main
focus but it cannot be exclusive if we truly care for our kids. It is
widely agreed that sex education is most effective when taught in the
home. But what happens with the kids whose parents either never mention
the word sex or permit them to do whatever they want?
The
city where I currently reside has a ridiculously high teen pregnancy
rate. About 80-90% of the pregnant women that go to the local women's
health center are teenagers. I personally know a handful of girls that
were pregnant by the age of 15 and 16. Expecting most of these kids to
practice abstinence is succumbing to ignorance and denial. Christianity
has no prevailing influence here. Whether the kids are Christian or
not, the problem does not lie within their belief system but within
their upbringing. And as believers, especially those who are concerned
about inner city ministry, we cannot expect to impact anybody with the
kind of exclusive abstinence talk that closes the doorway of a
teenager's sexuality.
I believe it is ungodly to have the kind
of self-righteous attitude that condemns sexually active teenagers with
a "screw you if you get someone pregnant or get STD, I told you so" and
have no compassion. We need to be aware that whatever the kid does will
not just affect him individually but will affect everyone else in his
life, and so our advice needs to takes into consideration everyone
(and, if impregnated, the child). When it comes to sex, all options
must be laid on the table. Sure, one prefers that abstinence is upheld.
Sure, a believer should not in any way encourage premarital sex. But a
believer cannot be naive and should care not only for the well being of
the person but also for all the people he is connected to.
I'm
not necessarily an advocate for safe sex education. But I'm not against
it if done right. It is not unchristian to talk about safe sex with
teens we know are sexually active or are not planning on abstaining
from sex. Ideally, parents should be the first, and perhaps the only,
to teach their kids about sex. But for those of us who did not and do
not have that kind of ideal parental guidance, I would rather have a
Christian educate me about abstinence AND safe sex over a school
teacher who isn't allowed to discuss the spiritual dimensions of our
sexual decisions.
I don't believe it is inappropriate for the
church to have a more prominent role in safe sex education. By church I
do not mean creating a program for safe sex education. What I mean is
that churches can be more aware and receptive to what its kids are
doing and respond on a case by case basis. Sexually active kids don't
talk to their Christian parents because of their "abstinence-no
exception" policy. Unfortunately, this terribly minimizes a parent's
influence in the kid's sexual life and subsequently many other intimate
aspects of his life.
Tangent: A year ago, one of the safe sex ad
campaigns portrayed Michaelangelo's The Creation of Adam with God
giving Adam a condom. Although it was inappropriate, I thought it was
conceptually brilliant. | | |
| Uncensored thoughts on Church, Politics and Life(Okay, I dub this uncensored for two reasons: One, I'm blunt and candid
about what I think; Two, the thoughts I share are not absolute, meaning
once they're further processed in my puny brain, they will undergo
deconstruction and correction. Facts, fiction, biases, opinions, truth,
deception are for the moment blurred.)
On Church
I've
read some sources online about how the English word for church does not
come from the Greek "ekklasia" but from "kyriakon". Interestingly,
kyriakon was used for the sanctuary/temple where Christians gathered. I
will be studying this further elsewhere because, frankly, I don't trust
online sources. But what's more fascinating is really what ekklasia
means in the original Classical Greek, which is a political term that
calls out citizens to come together for a specific purpose, i.e. for
war. The apostle Paul used it pretty openly to describe any assembly of
people, whether it was Christian or not.
Perhaps ekklasia is not
as sacred a term as we've made it. It's just a noun that identifies any
group, whether it was "of God" or not. Perhaps it's the "of God" that's
important. We speak of ekklasia as if it's some abstract reality that
exists outside of the very assembly of which it identifies.
Nonetheless,
Paul used the term more expansively than the Greek allowed. He used it
in a more Hebraic and holistic manner, using ekklasia in some instances
to identify not just a local assembly, but the whole body of Christ,
whether they were assembled in one particular place or scattered
geographically.
There are some Christians who would argue that
we translate ekklasia not as church but assembly. I could care less
what term we use because that's really not important. What's important
is the truth it's trying to convey, which transcends our limited
etymology.
As for my own journey with church, meaning the institutional church (IC)....
Being
no longer involved with the IC has allowed me to focus more deeply on
God and the rest of His kingdom. I am no longer confined to a religious
bubble where the world, and God for that matter, is squeezed into a
box--this isn't true of all ICs. I'm often asked why I don't start my
own church. I often answer that if I did, it will probably follow the
same model of religious obligation that other ICs employ. And frankly,
I believe it is more important to "be" the church rather than "go" to
church.
On Politics
I've
been listening to Rush Limbaugh lately. I disagree with basically
everything he says. Yet, I find him quite entertaining and I can't stop
myself from listening. Even more entertaining are the calls Rush get
from people who practically worship the guy. They all act as if America
will cease to exist under Democrat rule. But the same could be said of
the liberal radio stations I've heard. Some of the talk hosts believe
religious leaders are atheists themselves who use religion to
manipulate people. Can't we all just make love and peace?
I like
Obama. He's charismatic and not afraid to tell conservative
Evangelicals that he believes in atheistic evolution, even if that
risks the "Evangelical" vote. Will he get things done (whatever this
means) in the White House...well, that's another matter...and I'm
usually very pessimistic about government.
I don't dislike Bush. I think people need to stop blaming him for everything that goes wrong. Give the man a break.
An Update
So
I finally have the job that I've always wanted. I am now a graphic
designer for a graphic design studio in Lancaster. I get to work for
various clients and on different projects. My co-workers are very cool
people who are passionate about life and graphic design. They like to
have fun and create excellent work. What more could I want? Part of me
wants to thank God for granting me this opportunity. Part of me wants
to smack myself upside the head and say "Sure, you're like the rest of
them, thanking God for the good things and denying His presence when
you get the bad things..." I'll choose the former for now--so thank you
Lord for your provisions, even if getting this job is just godless good
fortune (oh my foolish skepticism). | | |
| Bible: Authoritative or NotWhat do most conservative Protestants mean when
they say the Bible is authoritative? Clearly not everything is
authoritative, depending on whether it falls under the Old or New
Covenant. There are things they follow and don't follow in Scriptures.
Then again, one would have to initially arrive to a comprehensible
definition of authoritative before applying it to Scriptures, and
subsequently, to God, and then argue about it. In the modern sense of
the word, I do not believe the Bible is authoritative in all its
aspects. However, I find N.T. Wright's thesis on the subject rather
compelling, as he attempts to redefine what it means for the Bible and
God to be authoritative. I have no
intention to elaborate on the matter because I'm simply unmotivated.
However, you will find below a link to N.T. Wright's lecture on this
particular subject. I don't agree with everything he says, but I find
him to be compelling. Enjoy. http://www.marshill.org/pdf/HOW_CAN_THE_BIBLE_BE_AUTHORITATIVE.pdf | | |
|
