Hhanover

Politics is about getting elected. Getting elected is about convincing people that you (the candidate) are like them. Religious identity is a handy and short cut way to show that the candidate is acceptable. Thereafter comes the problem: Identifying religious precepts with political positions makes politics more like religion and, by definition, makes compromise more like heresy. Which is exactly how we managed to get our government tied in a knot. Refusing to mix politics with religion does not mean abandoning moral values, it means being willing to say , "I will compromise on this so we can move ahead, not because I have abandoned my personal beliefs, but because I accept that people of good will can and do differ on the subject". Don't look for my utopian view to become reality any time soon.

GeorgeW is on to something. Incident after incident has shown us that attacks on the Prophet or the Qur'an create a violent response from some Muslims. The violent response is dumb, demeaning to God by inferring that God is a weakling unable to protect God's self, but it is entirely predictable. If someone of a particular political bent wants to create a crisis during an election year, what better way to do it than to use a time honored method of raising a riot in a sensitive part of the world? For years, until people smartened up a little, the Westboro Baptists could predictably stir up some legislature to pass an unconstitutional law, violate the law, challenge the conviction and get their attorney fees reimbursed when they (always) won. Some arguably overly devout Muslims are being manipulated by the movie maker, but are we also? Have you noticed that the response of Muslim protesters to the film is aimed at America as a whole and that our response to the protesters (and murderers) is aimed at Islam as a whole? We are being fiddled by expert fiddlers. Criticizing the artistic merit of the film ignores how very effective it was.

Look, let's suppose that God set for God's self the goal of the salvation of the world. I think he has the horsepower to get the job done and that neither our little peccadilloes nor our little charitable acts can inflict on God the duty to behave in accordance with our actions rather than in accordance with His will. What we call a "good" life - the life described in chapters 5, 6 and 7 of Matthew's Gospel - would better be referred to as a "happy" life, that is, a life which maximizes our own capacity for joy and minimizes our negative impact on others. It makes us happy. It does not make us immortal. All that is up to God and we already know that he wants us with Him. We're his kids, after all. Does Jesus disapprove of divorce generally or just divorce where the woman has not done naughty things? Ask Jesus, but don't get too sanctimonious about it because we are going to meet a bunch of divorced people in Heaven, whatever that is, and everyone we meet there will be a so-called sinner. Jesus' disapproval of divorce was culture-specific in that during His lifetime divorce was cruel and destructive to women. That's the radical bit. A first century Jew expressing genuine concern for women's rights. I imagine He was giving the answer "don't be cruel" to the question "can a man give his wife a bill of divorce?".

It is the interesting occupation of we humans to spend time analyzing things which cannot be understood or analyzed by a brain of our horsepower. Something happened in first century Palestine which caused a group of people to have an intense spiritual experience. The intensity of that experience was sufficient to cause those who experienced it directly to be able to impart it to others. All that was enough until we turned our dim lights on the matter and developed explanations and dogma which were apparently unnecesary to the earlier converts. All of this - Jesus' relationship to God, our relationship to God, the nature of the Trinity - is incapable of understanding or explanation with any degree of certainty as to correctness. Not that mystery was any deterrent to the skinning alive, burning at the stake and drownings by which theological disputes were resolved after the establishment of the Church. I am unable to see the distinctions in our differences. I hereby declare everyone right. Hollis

Whether or not we are better off sort of depends on what is meant by "we". Humanity is better off. In the eighteenth century democracy took off and in the nineteenth century human chattel slavery began to be widely viewed as evil and deserving of extinction. Women in many parts of the world have gained the right to own property, to vote and to be protected against some forms of ill treatment. Vestiges of old hatreds and prejudices are under attack as we fine tune our concepts of equality. I simply do not get the nostalgia for what we now think of as the idyllic village life of old. All of us live in a village made up of our acquaintances and fellow workers or students even if the "village" is imbedded in a large city. We are entirely free to create a community of people who all know our business to the degree and depth we decide to permit. Our wider experience has helped us become less suspicious and fearful of people who appear or act different from us and our lack of isolation opens opportunities for us to learn as much as we desire - which further nudges to the top of our minds the idea, once widely hooted at as ridiculous, of the brotherhood of humankind. We humans are on a roll. Keep your money on us and we will not disappoint you in the long run. Sure there are setbacks and instances of vicious inhumanity, but by and large our social evolution is heading in a healthy direction. Notice there is nothing in here about life expectancy or diet or medical care. All that is vital, of course, but my focus is to see how humans are evolving in their treatment of other humans. It's pretty good. Hollis

Free will just doesn't work out for me. It looks like causal determinism is the real deal, but it is good for me to act as if I have free will. In the early Christian church the doctrine of apokatastasis was reasonably widely accepted which meant everyone gets to Heaven. Origen was a proponent of the doctrine, but pretty soon, around Augustine, I think, it became a heresy. Who needs priests if everyone is going to Heaven anyway? If I was Augustine, a bishop, I would sure try to make sure I had a job too. Here's the deal: we are told that God set for God's self the task of the saving of the world. God is either up to the task or not much of a God. I'm going to have to go with God being equal to the job. Bottom line: Yes on Heaven, yes on everyone gets there. Relax.

This is NOT a diagnosis. There is a disease called pityriasis rubra pilaris which has peeling feet, among other things, and which sometimes progresses to heart failure. It has both an inheritable form and the other kind. The cause is unknown. The cure is unknown. In the non-inherited kind there are spontaneous recoveries. Not so much in the inherited kind. In every kind of serious disease which has the possibility of spontaneous remission the remission is indistinguishable from a miracle when the remission happens. Your nephew has experienced a miracle. Or not. Either answer is equally defendable. I say it is a miracle and your nephew should enjoy it as such. Do you know what happened to Lazarus? Later on he got sick from something else and died for good. Celebrate with your nephew about the miracle but keep him going to doctors when he gets sick. Hollis

Right. "Echoes the voice of Jesus" is an eloquent and cogent way to put it. Takes some of the skepticism out of the way I say it. I think I will adopt it. Without attribution of course. Hollis

George, I'm not even sure Jesus said these things. I believe that Matthew's author had the opinion that if Jesus had something to say on the subject he would have said what was written. Early middle eastern authors were not a bit reluctant to credit their own thoughts to someone famous if they were certain that they were getting the gist right. I think Matthew was trying to get this point across: they can't hurt you if you don't give a doodoo what happens. Pretty good advice to a church which largely consisted of Jews and which was primarily located in a country which, just a few years earlier, the Romans had just stomped flat. Hollis

After thinking about this general subject for many years, I have reached the conclusion that I just cannot do it. "It" being a Christ-like life. The operating manual for a Christian life is included in Matthew chapters 5, 6 and 7. Those chapters are probably the source of the card player's boast, "read 'em and weep". Not only can I not live like that, I don't know anyone who looks like they are even getting close. Do not resist evil? Yikes! if someone sues you for your pants give him your coat too? Not very likely. Give to everyone who asks, lend without expecting repayment, if someone hits you with a left cross ask him for a right cross as well, etc.? How about prayer? Don't let anybody know you do it. How about charity? Never divulge that you have given anything to anyone, deserving or undeserving. If any of you are as bleak about all this as I am, I have rewritten the Sermon on the Mount to conform with what I believe to be human capabilities. Here is a free copy: "Do the best you can until you die, and then let God sort it out". Hollis

My observation is that "genital" sins are such a hot topic because we know when we or others have done them. It's a little more iffy when we contemplate pride, envy, greed, ignoring the poor, worshipping ephemeral idols like materialism (my specialty). I mean, really, isn't greed good? Ask Adam Smith, for crying out loud. And pride, isn't it healthy? Bumper stickers say "proud of my honor student" or "my C student can kick your honor student's butt". It is all very muddled unless you have been next door for a bit of bouncy with the neighbor lady. That one's clear at least. So, being a bit thick, we concentrate on the clear misdeeds - most often the clear misdeeds of others, of course. We indeed are a funny bunch. Hollis

Look, this is not a criticism or adverse judgement on anyone - it just sounds like it. Does anyone else think it's kind of creepy to obsess about how and with whom other people have sex? I admit to thinking quite a bit about ME having sex, but to spend the apparent effort and time our politicians spend contemplating the sex acts off others points to something weird, perhaps. Just saying.

Whoa. Pedophilia and incest are different because they involve rape. Rape bad, consent good. The end.

Welll, let me tell you, Bishop Spong did a number on me with Sins of Scripture (which I only made it half way through before hightailing it to the web to hunt Spong down). I am a very active Catholic who spends no little energy looking away from or rationalizing some of the more troublesome parts of doctrine and dogma, but now my conscience is mollified because everything I read in Sins makes an "aha" connection. I will no doubt stay in my church, but seeing through the fog is easier. I think my credit card will take a few more hits at the Kindle store for more of his books. This is fun!