For a project for Worldview class, Clive and I went to a Buddhist meeting tonight. First, I will describe to my best ability what happened.

When we got there, Clive was a little scared. To be honest I wasn't, but that could be because of my experiences at Catholic mass a few weeks ago. People are good, and don't want to make others feel uncomfortable. There were only four of them there, plus Clive and I. We stood around for a few minutes talking, during which they explained things to us. It was pretty difficult to explain Buddhism in 20 minutes. It's got to be the most complex religion there is.

Part of the explanation included telling us a little about what meditation is, since that was to be the main thing they did. They said that it is about emptying yourself of yourself. The only goal is goal-lessness. One of them said that this is how we try to connect with our primordial form... or something like that. Apparently, "there's nothing supernatural about it. Until you become supernatural, that is."

We then sat down on some chairs lined up in front of their rather simple "altar". It had a statue of Buddha, and some other symbolic items like a living flower, a jar of water, and some pictures of their "master", a female monk who started their order. One man lit some incense, and they made it clear that the incense was not necessary or religious, it was only there to give a scent to take our minds off of other things. We read something out of a book that very strongly represented Anglican liturgy. It was a passage that we read together about the purpose of meditation.

Next came the part that was not in any way anti-Christian: meditation. If I had my concordance, or a certain one of my books, I would now be inserting some of the many Bible verses talking about meditation. Instead, I'll just explain what we did. We sat on matts, cross-legged, with our hands forming an "O" on our laps, and our backs fully straight. This posture was not religious, but is simply the way they do things to feel most relaxed. They shut off the lights, and instructed us to keep our eyes open and not think. One man then talked himself in a circle trying to explain how to not think. I think I got what he was hinting at. It made sense, even if it didn't make sense the way he was explaining it.

We sat there for twenty minutes. Every so often he would ring a bell, which served the purpose of catching us when we started thinking about something. The irony was that the large old church next door had bells going constantly the entire time. We kept our eyes open, and stared off into space, trying not to try.

After that, we put everything away, and had tea together. It was some pretty decent fellowship. We listened to a tape of their master talking about meditation, and then had some more fellowhsip, during which we were allowed to ask some questions. We got some pretty good dialogue going. After a few minutes, we shook hands, politely bowed (as a sign of respect for them, not of worship), and left. I'll reiterate again that they stated that bowing is not worship for them, it is just being polite. If you're a Christian and you can't grasp that, get over it. Actions have different meanings in other places in the world.

I have tried to give you an objective account of what happened. Now I will proceed with my opinion. I'm warning that it will have a have a heavily Christocentric epistemology. If you object to my views on the nature of truth, talk to me, and you may find them less biggoted than you'd expect.


They're so close. They're about as close as you can get while completely missing the mark. The meditation was so good. They don't worship Buddha, though some Buddhists may. They follow his wisdom, and the wisdom of other wise people, never claiming this wisdom to be divine. They recognize human belief as human belief, and in doing so are not doing anything wrong. They are as close to truth as we can expect someone without the Living Word of God to be.

The thing that struck me most is how easy it is to talk to my God, and how easy salvation is. Have faith in Christ, and you will be saved. Once you're saved, you can talk directly to God with no priest, and no hours and decades of meditation. And God talks back. You hear his voice. When you trust him, you see his works. It's so simple.

It's like they have the human half down perfect, but so desperately need the God half. They managed, or at least have the goal, to empty themselves. From this, they receive a calm and almost stoic approach to things. It gives them the ability not to be angry, and to do all forms of good. Yet they are still empty. There was no life behind their eyes. They would be such amazing tools for God if only they could receive as much into their lives as they give out. The meditation was good, but it didn't seem to be getting them anywhere. There was no evidence of them feeling fulfilled, or having the increased understanding they talked about.

What struck both Clive and I the most is when the man said "we don't have a purpose". He was saying that they empty themselves of self, because they do not have any purpose. I just wanted to shout to heaven, "I HAVE A PURPOSE!!!" And the thing is, they're sort of right. How can you know your purpose without God? Again I must say, they've got as much figured out as you can without having God in your life.

Aside from my deepened (yet hardly deep) understanding of another way of seeing things, I am taking away three main things from the meeting tonight:

1) I need to meditate more. Their method of meditation was rather stellar, but was missing one obvious thing. I shall do it in a very similar fashion to what was taught tonight, but with God. Empty self, fill up on God. Also, empty self, listen to God. And that's not all that will compose my relationship with God, obviously. It's just a nice thing that I should start doing. It might help with the stress of life.

2) I'm so glad my God is a heart-length's reach away. I can talk to God so easily. We've got a pretty good relationship, and it's only going to get better. He gives me joy and sustains me. His Word is my bread. Yada yada yada, my God's in me. He loves me. He's right here. And he says "Hi! Knock, knock."

3) I have a purpose. Because God is in my life, I can do what he wants me to do. All prejudice aside, it was obvious that they did not have God. And they wouldn't claim to. But there just wasn't that Christian joy. They would say they don't need the self pleasure of joy. But... I wish they knew what the joy of the Lord was. So wonderfully delightful. And all we need.

They were nice people, and I'd like to go again some time. I wasn't compelled to do anything that was against my belief, and they didn't even do much that is against my belief. I can do most of the things they do without feeling like I'm stepping out of the lines God has drawn. Buddhism is a very honest and human religion, from what I saw in this specific sect. It is trying to find truth with the best of human ability, like so many of us out there. If ever you get a chance, drop by a Buddhist meeting and talk to them. It might help your nerves. It helped my back as well.

Remember, remember,
The Fifth of November,
The gunpowder treason and plot.
I know of no reason
Why the gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.

Happy Guy Fawkes Day everyone. My day went off just as I've been planning it for the last year. Ever since I heard the movie V for Vendetta was being made I planned on watching it tonight, and ever since I knew I was going to be in England for Bonfire Night, the plan has been written in stone. We had a a nice bonfire and fireworks, though there were no Guy Fawkes effigies to be seen. Then we went for a walk in the Mattersey park and had a nice theological discussion (is there anything more enjoyable?) We came back here, and watched V for Vendetta in my room.

Normally I would proceed in detailing an elaborate philosophical dissection of the wonderfully crafted film, but this one is even deeper than the Matrix, so it would take at least 3000 words. I think I'll just list some of my favourite quotes.

"A revolution without dancing wouldn't be a revolution at all."
"We are being buried beneath the avalanche of your inadequacies, Mr. Creedy."
"Ideas are bullet-proof."
"People should not fear their governments. Governments should fear their people."
"One thing is true of all governments. The most reliable records are tax records."
"However, this vital visitation of a by-gone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin, van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition."
"I say it's time we pay them back for a little tea party they held for us a few years back."
"And as always, England prevails."
"Strength through unity, unity through faith."
"We only tell the stories, we don't make them up. That's the government's job."

If you have not seen this movie, go rent it. If you have no idea what Guy Fawkes Day or Bonfire Night are, go straight to Wikipedia and find out. It is a rather intriguing day. Bon voyage.

Question: does Christ need defending?

On the news today was a group of Christians threatening to picket a film festival. Why? Because one of the films shows a "1964 sculpture of Jesus Christ pinned to the wings of a U.S. air force jet, an image [originally] created to protest the Vietnam War. [Also objected to is] a work that shows the Virgin Mary as a voodoo doll, one showing Christ popping out of a toaster, and images that link a former pope with Adolf Hitler."

What Would Jesus Do?

Probably amass a large group of people to form an army, and defeat the Romans posessing the Holy Land. Oh right, Jesus wasn't the expected military general. Jesus would have done absolutely nothing. And beside that, if God actually did want us to defend him from the blasphemies of unbelievers, he wouldn't tell us to "go unto the unbelievers and picketeth their film festival." What we have here is people who aren't Christians, probably doing something that is not meant to provoke Christians at all. Even if it was, we are still strictly forbidden from judging them. Why doesn't the Church understand this simple and solitary dichotomy that we are suppose to have? Don't judge those outside the Church, judge those inside the Church.

In other news, "A top U.S. evangelical pastor embroiled in a sex scandal has agreed to step down from his church after its independent investigative board found against him." Rev. Ted Haggard has been accused paying for gay sex on a regular basis. He denies that claim, but has admitted to "having contacted Jones [the male prostitute] for a massage and to having purchased crystal meth from him out of curiosity." He claims to have discarded the crystal meth and not used it. The appearance of this event days before the US mid-term elections and the vote on a same-sex bill in Haggard's home state are probably not coincidential, yet his admissions are clearly not fabricated. Let the judge decide what really happened.

Here's the real issue. Haggard was the head of the U.S. National Assembly of Evangelicals. He was also a rather vocal opponent of gay marriage, and had weekly meetings with Bush or his advisors. He is the embodiment of the stereotypical Evangelical American pastor, ordering his adherents to vote Republican. If proven guilty, he will also be guilty of supreme hypocrisy, the only thing Jesus really blew up at.

American Christianity is something I could blog for hours on. Of course it's not all bad, but the general sour aftertaste it leaves in one's mouth brings up the question, does Christ need defending? Also, how much of the American Church's meddling in state affairs qualifies as judging those outside the Church?

If you read on, please watch my wording carefully. I do not believe that the Church has any grounds on which to protest the isolated issue of a man legally marrying a man. I believe that the gay marriage issue is important and debatable. However, I believe that the Church's place in this argument is to be entirely secular, aside from where gay marriage pertains to the Church (for example, pastors being forced to perform gay marriages). I also believe that any individual, Christian or not, should take his or her lawful political place in voicing his or her reasons for or against gay marriage, with the exclusion of all religious arguments. The words "God" and "Bible" should never appear in these arguments. We are not to judge those outside the Church, and we cannot expect them to give the slightest care when we argue using these terms. However, if one wishes to argue that gay marriage should not be allowed because of its impact on the family, or to use any other entirely secular argument, it is no less than your democratic duty to defend what you feel passionate about. Go ahead, lobby your MP. Wave your signs. However, do not bring God into situations that he could rain brimstone onto if he so chose. In the New Testament, we have no Biblical grounds to bring our religion into the government process. The greatest example we have is that of Christ, who never spoke a word against the Romans, other than saying to Pilate that he "would have no power over me if it were not given from above." God has things under control. He knows what earthly governments are doing, and allows it. I can say with a fair degree of confidence that he is more concerned with the private life of Rev. Ted Haggard, if indeed there is something to be concerned with. I also think that God is very concerned about the children who grow up with two dads, but if that is a wrong thing than we do not need to use the word "God" to explain that it is wrong, and we must not use God to argue that it is wrong.

I must admit that I am currently split over the issue. While it really doesn't bother me if two males believe they are married to each other, it does bother me when a child is brought into it. If it wasn't for that one element I would not raise a finger to stop the government from passing bills supporting gay marriage. Let the world without Christ do what the world without Christ will do. I also do not think that any clergy should be forced to perform a gay marriage, and as soon as it is written in stone that gay marriage is a right, the repealling of legal choice on the issue for clergy will be inevitably removed. However, if that becomes the case, the Christian answer is simply to not perform the ceremony, and take whatever comes. Follow God, turn the other cheek, and forgive.

While I'm on the topic, this brings to mind the entire issue of Christianity's response to homosexuality in general. I've already ranted about my history teacher's perspective on this issue, but his words are rather pertinant to this blog as well. He said that he wishes we were back to the Victorian days when homosexuals did not "come out of the closet", because it was considered shameful. I would like to say here that any Christian who is offended by the gay pride movement should A) not be offended, and B) realize that the ENTIRE cause of the gay pride movement IS Christianity itself. There is no one else to blame. Pride is the natural reaction to oppression, and homosexuals were and are oppressed by people who label themselves Christian. I will never forget the words of my beloved friend Austin when she said to me "you're the first Christian who has ever shown love to me." Those words stung. What a putrid cult I seem to be part of. The more we oppress homosexuals, the more pride they will have, and the stronger the conflict will grow. Do people actually think that there is an end in sight when we politically move with harshness against homosexuals? The conflict between Evangelicals and homosexuals is only just beginning. The only way to diffuse the gay pride movement and live in peace and morality is to step down. If we believe that gay marriage will hurt children, then that is something we must fight for. However, the move to have homosexuality reinstituted as a moral evil must die. The secular world has no reason to believe homosexuality is wrong. We must go on in the love of Jesus Christ, and not in the oppression of Pompey the Great, desecrator of the Jewish Holy of Holies. When we act in anything other than love, we are cloning his actions. Look them up some time if you're interested in what Christianity is currently doing to itself.

I'm suggesting that Christianity do two things. A) Resign from politics completely, aside from the civic duties of every civilian, and B) Go find yourself a homosexual, get down on your knees, and beg forgiveness for the centuries of anti-Christian actions. Then, take him or her out to the fanciest restaurant you know of, and when you get back, clean the person's house, do their laundy, cook meals for a week, and never say the word Christ until he or she asks the question "why are you doing this?" These words should be the first thing to the lips of any person, anywhere in the world, asked for their opinion of Christianity. If someone can actually give an answer when asked for their opinion of Christianity, it means that they understand us, and no one without the Holy Spirit living through them knows what it's like to be a Christian.

The Church has one more view it desperately needs to change. If in fact Rev. Haggard struggles with homosexuality, the fact that he is 50 and hasn't gotten over it says a lot. Chances are that the reason he hasn't gotten over it is because he's been too ashamed to tell anyone. The reason for this is that most churches are either horrible at judging those in the church, or way too good at it. The clear fact is that the Bible, especially the writings of Paul, tells us to judge each other. Christians in the circles Haggard is probably use to would judge a struggling homosexual by automatic and harmful excommunication. That's not Biblical. Christians in some circles would refuse to judge, on the grounds that you can't love someone and judge them. Other Christians simply don't believe there's anything wrong with homosexuality.

Here's the way I see it. Any individual struggling with homosexuality, should have absolutely no reason to believe that they would be scorned by the Church for it. We are suppose to confess our sins to each other. The extent that Christians should judge each other is to tell the individual that what they are doing is wrong. If they refuse to change, then perhaps there is valid reason to take some sort of disciplinary action. However, as long as they are clearly trying to change and clearly repentant, our course of action once again is love. No more, no less.

From what I've seen and read, the biggest reason people come out of the closet and leave the Church is because of the Church's attitude toward homosexuality. Usually, a Christian will do this late in life. The individual will fight homosexuality all by theirselves for years and years, until eventually it takes over, and they give up. If they could only feel free to tell things to their pastors and their friends. So many pastors have left the ministry and their families because, somewhere in their fourties, they gave up the fight against homosexuality, after struggling without telling anyone. If Christians would only see homosexuality as an honest problem for a lot of Christians, then those who struggle with it would be able to get the help from their Christian brethren that is suppose to exist. I believe homosexuality is always reversible, but much easier to fight when diagnosed early on. The Church would be so much healthier if people struggling with homosexuality had no fear of telling their Christian friends, and Christians treated homosexuality the same way it is gradually (very gradually) learning to treat porn-addicts and alcoholics. Christians must rally behind each other to build each other up in love and encouragement. We have so much power to help each other. The prayers of many are so valuable. Even if they were hitting ceiling, they give so much encouragement. Christians have the ability to share their own testimonies and past and present struggles with each other. Imagine what a powerful force we could be if we learned to love each other. Then we could love others. And the world would wonder what hit it.

Selah.

Certainty.

It seems like one of Christianity’s favourite topics these days is truth. The debates about absolute truth, relativism, and ecumenicalism continue to rage. If you want to tick people off or get an amen in a sermon, just say the word "truth". The word inspires dread in those who fear other people's beliefs, and inspiration in people who believe they are right.

Whatever you believe truth is, whether you believe in absolute truth or not, there is a deeper question, which is the inevitable product of all of these questions. Should we be certain?

Certainty:
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the state of being certain.
2. something certain; an assured fact.
—Idiom
3. for or of a certainty, certainly; without a doubt: I suspect it, but I don't know it for a certainty.

It has been my experience that most of our questions about truth are actually just a form of this question of certainty. Those who believe in absolute truth are just more certain of ideas. A wise man once said to me, “the only certain thing in the world is that only crazy people are certain.” Is that just a statement of relative truth? Or is it wisdom stemming from a realization of the limits of the human brain?

If in fact it is wrong to be certain of something because we are human, where does that place us in relation to God? Belief is a function of the human brain, and I believe that this function is no different no matter what its target is. Thus, if certainty is not a positive modifier of the function belief, certainty in God cannot be a good thing.

I also believe that faith and trust are synonymous, and that faith has nothing to do with belief unless you are trusting in someone who told you to believe something. I do not see faith as a reason to be certain of God’s existence.

The problem with certainty is that we are always capable of being incorrect. Certainty is what stops us from seeing when we are correct. I once knew a Christian who was so certain that God created the world in six days that she said “I wouldn’t believe in evolution even if you proved it right before my eyes.” She then proceeded to say that her certainty came from her faith in God. The equation, as I see it, is as follows:

Belief + Faith = Certainty

I’m almost certain that is incorrect. But what about this one?

Belief + Proof = Certainty

Or this one:

Belief + Proof = Absolute Truth

I must distinguish the difference between certainty and absolute truth. This is hard to do since in my last blog on absolute truth I discovered that people have three different definitions of the term. Certainty is when your belief is “without a doubt,” in an “assured fact”.

The biggest pro of being certain is that it allows you to develop ideas on a firm foundation. When you are sure something is true, you can then base other ideas on the fact you have already discovered. Also, certainty can be considered necessary in order to have assurance of salvation. The main drawback of certainty is that we are human and could be wrong. Also, certainty is offensive to those who believe differently.

I am currently writing a book on the topic “truth”. I have gotten to a point where I cannot continue to write until I know what side I am on in the argument over certainty. I would love to hear your ideas.

Is certainty a positive, negative, or neutral characteristic of one’s beliefs?


This blog will shortly be posted on the site http://jeremypostal.blogspot.com/ because it has more people that read it, and I really would like some discussion on this question. If you want to comment on the question, comment there. I'll be reading them. If you just want to say something to me, feel free to comment here.