Why would we want to make heaven a place on earth? If we look to the scriptures, we are supposed to long for heaven as a place better than earth. If we wish to implement a theocracy, aren't we defeating the purpose of longing for a better place? Doesn't that create a greater attachment to the material world? And to that end, aren't we actually trying to make perfection?
Oh perfection...the end goal. So argues the zealot: "we wish to be christlike!" Last I checked Jesus wasn't making stump speeches or helping to raise millions of dollars to support a candidate's bid for power. I'm going to wager Jesus would be tipping over the "money pots". If you want me to convert, just put a sword to my neck and ask that I convert or die. Don't insult me by the making the claim that you're doing this in my best interest...to protect my interests.
Monday, January 21, 2008
The Lady In The Library
Have you ever just went to another state's or city's newspaper in order to gather what they think the news is in that world? I ventured into the great NW...the home of the Ducks and Beavers...and found this little gem:
Kids and MLK
Raising children is not an easy task (said captain obvious). I am very outspoken regarding parents who think keeping their children hidden from the "world" is the best course. In an effort to protect the child, the parent limits the child's ability to prepare for the "world". In turn, knowing when your child is ready for the "world" becomes the real test of parenting. Who does the parent use as the onus of the decision: the parent or the child?
Any -ism demands so many layers of understanding that, as the article notes, we sometimes lose the very heart of the subject. The pain of knowledge comes from the self and how the self values it-self against the other. That our nation still feels a need to tip-toe around the black..white debate begs so many questions, none more relevant than "why can't we discuss it?". Is it that these children don't define themselves by the subjects of the past that it can be so freely operated on? Doesn't the debate always take an ugly turn when the subject becomes too personal and hence we find ourselves not defending the issue but rather our own self-defining positions?
Some might argue there is a fine line between telling and teaching. I disagree. Teaching is the simple task of finding a means of getting someone to understand a concept or a fact. The concept can be easier in that it isn't concrete. The fact, however, is presented as defined and when the questions arise about the fact then the teacher is obligated to have a sound understanding not only of the fact itself but how the fact came to be. To be clear, I am not using teacher as a professional term but rather as one who teaches. One does not need a degree to teach something.
So our article finds a group of children, in Oregon, working their way through the maze of MLK and racism. With the help of Teachers who had the good sense to know what approach to take. Phoebe would be proud.
"The cow in the meadow goes moo,
the cow in the meadow goes moo…
Then the farmer hits him on the head and grinds him up, and that's how we get hamburgers…
Now chicken!!!"
Kids and MLK
Raising children is not an easy task (said captain obvious). I am very outspoken regarding parents who think keeping their children hidden from the "world" is the best course. In an effort to protect the child, the parent limits the child's ability to prepare for the "world". In turn, knowing when your child is ready for the "world" becomes the real test of parenting. Who does the parent use as the onus of the decision: the parent or the child?
Any -ism demands so many layers of understanding that, as the article notes, we sometimes lose the very heart of the subject. The pain of knowledge comes from the self and how the self values it-self against the other. That our nation still feels a need to tip-toe around the black..white debate begs so many questions, none more relevant than "why can't we discuss it?". Is it that these children don't define themselves by the subjects of the past that it can be so freely operated on? Doesn't the debate always take an ugly turn when the subject becomes too personal and hence we find ourselves not defending the issue but rather our own self-defining positions?
Some might argue there is a fine line between telling and teaching. I disagree. Teaching is the simple task of finding a means of getting someone to understand a concept or a fact. The concept can be easier in that it isn't concrete. The fact, however, is presented as defined and when the questions arise about the fact then the teacher is obligated to have a sound understanding not only of the fact itself but how the fact came to be. To be clear, I am not using teacher as a professional term but rather as one who teaches. One does not need a degree to teach something.
So our article finds a group of children, in Oregon, working their way through the maze of MLK and racism. With the help of Teachers who had the good sense to know what approach to take. Phoebe would be proud.
"The cow in the meadow goes moo,
the cow in the meadow goes moo…
Then the farmer hits him on the head and grinds him up, and that's how we get hamburgers…
Now chicken!!!"
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Fearing the Compass
There has been much said about "The Golden Compass". I understand the concern. Not being "Christian" afford me the opportunity to stand outside the frey and evaluate it without the dogma or emotional attachment to anything.
A friend recently sent a "bulletin" out on the Golden Compass which prompted more thought on said movie. A while ago a child from my Sunday school group warned me that Compass was anti-God and that I should stay far away from it. In turn, he informed me that his teacher told him that sitting through that 2 hour movie would impact you because such extended exposure to anything will unquestionably influence you.
I add the last sentence because I find it important that we take a step back when castigating. Yes the movie is based on a book that is written by an athiest and yes the children set out to kill God. I would expect any Christian to be bothered by this. However, it is comments like this one that bother me:
Would this question of authority come into play if one were rallying against a government that was denying your right to pray? The very idea that "human law" is absolute is inconsistent with the nature of belief in something greater than the corporeal realm. Christians do rally against such actions, thererfore the idea that this movie will teach children to rebel against authority is a fear tactic. It is the same mentality that was expressed regarding Pokemon as promoting evolution while the premise behind it was the power of friendship.
Philip Pullman has stated his books are anti-Narnia. He further stated that he is not happy with the way religious institutions have decided to answer the questions of why and what with respect to existence. The question boils down to what Pullman's intent is and how are you, the viewer..reader, going to accept it. Being that this is fantasy, what is the context of the need to kill God? Is it the Gold of the bible? If not, then it really isn't an offense to a doctrine. To react simply to the "killing of God" is to forego understanding. If Pullman is being honest when he says "I am against organized religion" then what does his comments about killing God really mean?
Think of the uproar when The Last Temptation of Christ came out. Many protested, few saw it. When The Passion of the Christ came out, there were those who commented on it being too violent. Words like realism, fantasy and perspective are critical when looking at a work of art. On the surface something may appear to be X but too ensure a solid understanding you must look behind it.
I have not read these books nor have I seen the movie. I would like to and hopefully I will. Pullman is atheist..agnostic (and from what I've read he definitely has a hard time expressing himself on this as in one breath he'll say there is no god and in the next claim we can't know). I understand his disdain for organized religion. I believe that those who represent the faith, as a whole, are not doing it as the Book would want them to. Pullman has taken a drastic, in your face, approach to his belief. My concern is that an opportunity has been presented for dialogue and what some want to do is "burn witches".
I've always been of the opinion that the parent must make every effort to know when their child is ready to be exposed to ideas that demand them to rethink what they believe. Sheltering a child won't keep them from the world. As parents we are to assist our children by being there for when they have the hard questions. If you take this issue from a faith perspective it begs the question: is your faith so weak that it can't withstand the Golden Compass? This isn't a question of throwing the child into the movie without support. I can see the counter argument of not taking your child into a bar, strip club, etc. Again, it is a question of what the child is ready for. As adults we will meet people who do not agree with us. If we simply close ourselves from their ideas we will be unable to understand them and in turn will limit our ability to share anything that we believe will improve their existence.
Interesting take from the HollywoodJesus website.
A friend recently sent a "bulletin" out on the Golden Compass which prompted more thought on said movie. A while ago a child from my Sunday school group warned me that Compass was anti-God and that I should stay far away from it. In turn, he informed me that his teacher told him that sitting through that 2 hour movie would impact you because such extended exposure to anything will unquestionably influence you.
I add the last sentence because I find it important that we take a step back when castigating. Yes the movie is based on a book that is written by an athiest and yes the children set out to kill God. I would expect any Christian to be bothered by this. However, it is comments like this one that bother me:
I for one am a Christian who values Biblical beliefs, but even if you don't I think you are going to seriously consider not allowing your children to watch this movie after you read a little more about it. For instance, in the movie the children set out to kill God, and when they do they go about life doing whatever they want. Do you want your children to learn that they can kill whoever is in authority over them so that they can be free to do whatever they want? That would create utter chaos. Plus children who are not taught to respect authority are usually the ones who grow up without any fear of police, judges, or the law.
Would this question of authority come into play if one were rallying against a government that was denying your right to pray? The very idea that "human law" is absolute is inconsistent with the nature of belief in something greater than the corporeal realm. Christians do rally against such actions, thererfore the idea that this movie will teach children to rebel against authority is a fear tactic. It is the same mentality that was expressed regarding Pokemon as promoting evolution while the premise behind it was the power of friendship.
Philip Pullman has stated his books are anti-Narnia. He further stated that he is not happy with the way religious institutions have decided to answer the questions of why and what with respect to existence. The question boils down to what Pullman's intent is and how are you, the viewer..reader, going to accept it. Being that this is fantasy, what is the context of the need to kill God? Is it the Gold of the bible? If not, then it really isn't an offense to a doctrine. To react simply to the "killing of God" is to forego understanding. If Pullman is being honest when he says "I am against organized religion" then what does his comments about killing God really mean?
Think of the uproar when The Last Temptation of Christ came out. Many protested, few saw it. When The Passion of the Christ came out, there were those who commented on it being too violent. Words like realism, fantasy and perspective are critical when looking at a work of art. On the surface something may appear to be X but too ensure a solid understanding you must look behind it.
I have not read these books nor have I seen the movie. I would like to and hopefully I will. Pullman is atheist..agnostic (and from what I've read he definitely has a hard time expressing himself on this as in one breath he'll say there is no god and in the next claim we can't know). I understand his disdain for organized religion. I believe that those who represent the faith, as a whole, are not doing it as the Book would want them to. Pullman has taken a drastic, in your face, approach to his belief. My concern is that an opportunity has been presented for dialogue and what some want to do is "burn witches".
I've always been of the opinion that the parent must make every effort to know when their child is ready to be exposed to ideas that demand them to rethink what they believe. Sheltering a child won't keep them from the world. As parents we are to assist our children by being there for when they have the hard questions. If you take this issue from a faith perspective it begs the question: is your faith so weak that it can't withstand the Golden Compass? This isn't a question of throwing the child into the movie without support. I can see the counter argument of not taking your child into a bar, strip club, etc. Again, it is a question of what the child is ready for. As adults we will meet people who do not agree with us. If we simply close ourselves from their ideas we will be unable to understand them and in turn will limit our ability to share anything that we believe will improve their existence.
Interesting take from the HollywoodJesus website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)