#14 - Respond

So, last blog it is. This semester really flew. It's kind of sad. However, that's not really relevant.


What I really want to talk about it this project that we did. While we worked on it, I realized that I don't really agree with our opinion and neither does the premise behind our class.

Several weeks ago when Dr. Borders took us to Bear Elementary, he said that in dealing with bees he had to change himself in order to change how the bees responded to him. Thinking about that, it never once came up in the project. No one said that in order to change how we are educated and how our professors interact with us we would need to change ourselves. We are living in a society where we expect everyone to adapt to who we are and what we want. However, Jesus never once expected society to change without him first making a statement.

I look back on our class, and it gets me thinking. Jesus did not come to change society by complaining that it was flawed. He came to save it, and in order to do so, he changed himself to be like man. As a result, he has created a more profound impact upon humanity that any other human being throughout history.

We, as students, are a lazy group. Yes, some of us are hard-working, some of us really apply ourselves, some of us reach our potential. At the same time, we don't carry our own weight for the most part. If we decided to respect and cherish the academic authority that our professors have and use their acquired knowledge to expand our own, wouldn't we be better suited to progress on that instead of dumbing ourselves down? Because, who really wants to be the generation that dropped the ball?

Our teachers work hard for us. Its impossible for them to teach to each of our individual learning styles, and if they did we would still find flaws in their methods. Our education is our responsibility. They provide the information, but it is my job to connect with it. I am the one that that information is meant to help. They don't gain anything from telling me things that they already know. 

I guess what my point is that if we want to effect change, we have to start with us. That's what our project was about. That's what this class was about. That's what the gospels were about.

By Jove, I think I got it.

#13 - Disconnect

Ideally, Christianity should offend the state to be relevant. When churches accommodate to the state, they become ineffective. Christianity has become "dumbed down" so as not to disrupt society.

Where's the disconnect between the original aims of Christianity and the watered down version that has developed in modern times? How has it become a societal norm when it was intentionally designed to disrupt and change society?

#12 - A little more Jewish...

In class on Thursday, it was briefly asked how the world might be different if Jesus was considered a little more Jewish. It kind of struck me as funny, because I know that Jesus was Jewish, but I don't think about it. People like Martin Luther and Adolf Hitler, who were in a way seeing themselves as defenders of Christianity by killing equating negativity with Jew , were actually combating a fundamental principle of who Jesus was. As a result, the Jewish people have suffered through discrimination for centuries. Where would they be now if everyone considered Jesus to be just a little more Jewish?

#11 - The Divine Spark

During our class discussion on Gnosticism this week, we spoke a little about The Divine Spark. I thought it was a little odd how the two came together. So, a quick thought process outline:

 -A "divine spark" somehow made it into a select group of souls in the material universe.
- These select souls would require a redeemer to be led (with "the spark") back into the spiritual world.
- Knowledge is salvation.
- People were saved from their own ignorance, not sin. 

Did this Divine Spark give people the ability to acquire knowledge? If this spark did impart the ability to know, why was a redeemer required? Doesn't quite make sense...

All the while, I can't help but equate the Divine Spark to the All Spark. Wikipedia that. 

#10 - Language

An interesting idea was brought up in class over the last week. We started talking about the way in which our language wires our brain to think in certain ways and see the world in certain ways. It is not possible for us to communicate entirely accurate between cultures due to differences in meanings and an inability to translate exactly. This started me thinking about the story of the Tower of Babel. In earlier years, my thinking process was always that another incident of the same type could occur again if people simply learned the other languages. With this new idea of language shaping our thought processes, its seems as if a disconnect beyond just changing how to say a word occurred. With this in mind, is it ever possible that people could all be united in a common cause? If we cannot fully communicate, can we fully cooperate with each other?

#9 - Change

In class Thursday, we started planning out our project. We split into groups and started throwing around ideas and questions that we wanted to use to poll different campus groups regarding their opinions. In keeping with the original "recreating the 1st century" theme (which ironically, I think we discarded), I started thinking about how they solved issues in the first century. There weren't social networking sites, surveys, cell phones, or any other modern media that makes it so easy for us to communicate our ideas and make ourselves heard. They couldn't whip out the camcorder and record an interview with a prominent member of society. There is plenty of literature regarding the Roman Senate and the large scale government, but what other bodies were in place to take care of the mundane, day-to-day issues. If, in this course, we really want to see the world the way Jesus saw it, would it help to look at it with a perspective that we may not be as comfortable with?

#8 - Genealogy

In looking at Matthew's genealogy, it seems as if the contemporary world view is trying to portray Jesus in a poor light. Man y ancestors were promiscuous, unfaithful, or unknown in their times. He was a descendant of a collection of sexual immoral women, powerful, but corrupt kings, and people of no societal importance. How is it that this combination of ancestors was chosen to represent both Christ and David?

#7 - Duality

It seems as if every aspect of the Gospels serves a dualistic purpose. Matthew's segments of 14 generations aren't just indicating his relationships to family, but serves as a sign for David. Gematria seemed like a really interesting application to me. The idea that a letter can serve as a number and a representative of an entire lineage, idea, or other concept provides a lot of potential for how a culture can communicate. Their writing isn't just a way to pass on information, but serves almost as a code that is shared only amongst those "in the know." It makes it easier to try and understand how the "underground" Christian community in 1st century Rome could have operated.

#6 - Kingdom-Child

Could we just claim the kingdom to enter? Children had to be claimed in order to have value and be relevant to society. Following that line of thinking, does the kingdom also have to be claimed to be relevant? If the kingdom isn't claimed can it have any actual value?
Its hard to make this connection. Thinking that one only has to be child-like almost seems easier than sorting out the mess that apparently comes with sifting through the technical meanings or what the original text in scripture actually says.
In thinking of the kingdom as one would a child of the time:
Those children who were not claimed were considered non-persons, " a biologically functioning piece of flesh," but nothing more. They were valueless without someone to validate their existence. If we choose not to validate the existence of God's kingdom, is it also valueless? When a child was born, Roman society had the right to determine what the child was worth. Do we as a society also have the right to determine what the kingdom is worth?
It seems like a stretch. It seems a little offensive (maybe? I don't really know). Many people think "Kingdom of God" and it is instantly put on a religious pedestal. There are some things you just don't say in regards to it. BUT, are we, as God's beloved, what makes that kingdom valuable? Almost in a patron-client type relationship, does our stand as "kingdom" or "non-kingdom" people add or detract to the kingdom's value?
Definitely less of a headache to think that Christ wanted us to have child-like faith...

#5 - Roman Remedies

In thinking about how to deal with an issue like a Roman, I came to a few conclusions:

- Romans have a very limited concept of defeat and failure. It is simply something that happens to others when a Roman decides what they want. The understanding that a Roman could fail on the battle field or an attempt at something else was difficult to wrap one's head around. They were so confident in their abilities that they offered gods (a seemingly higher power) the chance to defect in order to survive (seem a little cocky?). - Therefore, it would seem that Romans would have one of two opinions in regards to change or issues:
 (a) Romans wouldn't have them. Why would one change or have a problem with a strong society that was successful already? Challenging the system wouldn't really make one a good Roman.
 (b) They would adopt the same strategy as they do for battle. Completely overwhelm and annihilate any opposition. 
- It seems that the actual issue would have very little to do with how it was dealt with. It would be systematic and effective.

#4 - Great Expectations

Before I walked out the door this morning for class, I put on pants, a shirt, shoes, etc. I didn't do it because they are particularly comfortable or give me a "survival advantage." I put them on because I got fussed at for streaking around the pool one too many times as a toddler and because being dressed when walking out the door is generally a social requirement. Even the most mundane aspects of life are governed by social constraints, selecting "right" from "wrong" and creating separation between people.

Now, how does this relate to Jesus and the Gospels?

In the discussion about the leper, it was brought up that having leprosy was not the man's problem. However, when purity codes were established that placed lepers out of the realm of acceptable social interactions it became an issue. When society saw something as unacceptable, it became sin in their eyes. Where is the connection from "separation from God" that leads to separation from society? Does society view themselves higher than is right?

What would we do if no one was around to segregate people into acceptable and unacceptable? What if we weren't conditioned to partition society into right and wrong as we do?

#3 - Faithing

Even the demons believe, but they do not have faith...

That concept always seemed a bit muddled to me. Growing up in a relatively normal American church, one is usually taught to think that believing in Jesus is almost enough to get you through the pearly gates and definitely enough to convince other people that you're a "christian." Having a walking around knowledge of the scriptures doesn't hurt either. Yeah there's the other requirements like living a good life and yadda yadda yadda, but you don't hear about that until after you get up from the altar.

Faith as a lifestyle, however, sharing in the death of Jesus and living as he did, now that creates a much larger separation between those that believe and those that actively faith.

I wasn't taught to see faith as an action. Faith is a concept or something one names their child, but a verb? No. I repeatedly caught myself during class thinking that "faithing" wasn't right. One doesn't faith. It just doesn't make sense. Trying to think outside my box, I started wondering what the impact of the Christian church could be if more people tried to step out of the box and actively faith instead of just having it.

#2 - Perspective

What if the problem with TRUTH isn't that we have many perspectives, but that we have difficulty understanding what we see in the perspectives?

This question was asked in class this week and started me thinking about a few ideas.

Example 1 - Crusaders. We generally think of them as doing a good thing, attempting to bring western culture to those who didn't know of Christ. They are viewed as heroes. However, from the perspective of a Muslim, crusaders weren't such awesome characters. The crusaders invaded someone else's civilization in order to claim a "holy land" that they had no right to to begin with.

Example 2 - Jesus: Christ versus Rebel. Many areas of modern society believe that Jesus was the Christ, Messiah, and Savior. They believe by faith. When examined objectively though, it is hard to use faith as a justification for that belief. People believe that Jesus is the Son of God who was sent with a distinct purpose, and not just an ordinary human being who disrupted Roman society for kicks. They are comfortable with that belief. Therefore, the prospect that Jesus was not divine seems blasphemous. It is possible, however, that from an alternate perspective, Jesus may not have been quite the divine hero that scripture paints him as.

Now, I am not arguing either way on these examples. Perspectives to tend to blind people to the reality of a situation. No one wants to believe that their opinions are "wrong," however, at the same time no one really wants to find out what's right and true either. People become comfortable with what they think and believe, and that sense of comfort can often be used as a crutch, making it difficult to adapt their thinking process to understand other perspectives.

#1 - Truth?

Based on this past week's class discussions it seems as if the most obvious point to talk about it truth. So, here are a few thoughts:

When thinking about what truth actually is, my first thought was to look it up. Dictionary.com provided 12 different definitions for truth. Definition 9 (agreement with a standard or original) seemed to line up with a lot of the opinions that were presented in class. Truth is less concrete than what we as individuals would like to think. We see safety and certainty in what we believe to be true. It is definite, unarguable, and justifiable to us. By definition, however, truth is simply agreement with societal norms.

Each person's interpretation of "the truth"  gives it validity in their eyes, making it "true" for their lifestyle. That same set of parameters is not necessarily true for others. Therefore truth is more like a sliding scale that adjusts to individuals based on circumstance.

When reaching this conclusion, it makes me wonder if truth, which is relative to personal biases, can really exist at all?