All Human Beings Are Children of The God

  A friend of mine posted a video from YouTube today which took issue with the Pope's declaration that we are all children of God regardless of religion.  In this video, he read from the King James Version of John 8:39-45 where Jesus tells the Judeans who declared that Abraham was their father, and then that God was their father, that their father was actually the devil because they sought to murder Him and the devil was a murderer from the beginning. I didn't really get much further into the video because this person seemed to have an antisemitic bent as he made it clear that Jesus was talking to the Jews specifically, and made it sound like all Jews are the children of the devil which is in fact a theological point of certain extreme Christian sects.

     In John's first letter, the Apostle indirectly touches on what Jesus was saying in the third chapter where he says, "Every person making their home in Him does not error; every person who errors hasn't seen Him neither known Him. Children, don't let anyone lead you to wander away; the person doing the right state of being is right, just like that One is right; the person doing the error is from the devil, beccause the devil errored from the beginning. ... Every person having been born from the God does not do the error, because His sperm makes its home within him, and he isn't capable of erring, because he has been born from God. With this the children of the God of the devil are apparent; every person not doing the right state of being is not from God, also the person not loving his brother."

     So, what are Jesus and John talking about here? Every human being carries the "Imago Dei," the image of God, just as Jesus Christ is the image of God. Just as Jesus Christ is the Logos, so every human being carries a piece or "shred" of that logos. Every human being is in fact a child of God. 

     The problem comes in where not every human being (probably most human beings) is connected to the Head, that is, the Logos. Imagine a body with all the nervous system wiring which connects each body part to the brain. Now imagine that some parts of that body aren't receiving signals from the brain and are therefore paralyzed and unable to function. They are no less a part of the body, but they are unable to communicate with the Head.

     Those who operate from their malfunctioning flesh, who are governed by their fear, aggression, and bodily cravings are in fact paralyzed where the Head is concerned. The signals are being blocked because when this threat response system is in control, when fear is governing our thinking, responses, and words, it becomes next to impossible to love. When the survival response system, which is entirely based in our flesh, takes over that part of us which is not flesh becomes blocked.  God is love, and love becomes obstructed by fear just as love brought to completion tosses fear out. By choosing to be governed by this system, we choose to not respond to the Head. 

     When Jesus and John describe the "children of the devil," they are trying to make a point. The devil errored from the beginning. The devil has been governed by fear and aggression, and has thus been a murderer from the beginning. When we choose to be governed by our fear, we are choosing to follow in the devil's footsteps. When we choose to be aggressive, angry, and hateful, and when we choose to be governed by our bodily cravings and attachments we are following in the devil's footsteps like children following a kidnapper who raises them like an abusive, criminal parent.

     When we choose to be governed by the Imago Dei, the logos, the Spirit of Christ; when we choose to love and allow God's love to flow through us, then we are being who we truly are and functioning with a right state of being as born children of the God. The Imago Dei is not capable of error. The malfunctioning and erroneous flesh is not capable of a right state of being. We choose whom we follow, our Father from birth, or the kidnapper masquerading as our father.

     All human beings are children of God, regardless of their religious beliefs, but not all human beings are choosing the path of their natural born Father, but the path of their deceiver and kidnapper.

You Cannot Love a Person You See As a Threat

 You cannot love someone whom your brain is screaming at you is a threat. You can certainly have an attachment to them, as many have attachments to those who threaten them, but that is not loving them. To love someone is a choice, not an attachment or an emotion. The moment you see someone as a threat, your fear response kicks in which then can also trigger your aggression response. The brain only knows two ways to deal with threats. Seeing the other person as yourself, or yourself in the other person, having compassion on them, is not one of them. The brain cannot be allowed to engage its threat response system if it is your goal to love this other person. You can either love this other person, or you can see them as a threat, but you cannot do both. Your brain will not allow you to do it.

     Therefore, when you are aggressive towards someone, you cannot love them simultaneously in that moment. When you are scared of someone, you cannot simultaneously love them in that moment. Again, love is a choice to have compassion on the other person, to see yourself in the other person. It is an action, not an emotion.

     If we are to love the person next to us as ourselves, then we cannot see them as a threat. Whether or not we see them as a threat is up to us. It is a choice we make, or rather it is a choice we are capable of making upon reflection of our own subconscious attitudes, biases, and preconceptions. One does not try to protect themselves from a person whom they are choosing to love as themselves. This is why Jesus taught to "turn the other cheek," and "if someone takes your coat, give him your shirt as well," and "if someone forces to go one mile with him, go with him two." He also explicitly taught to "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who abuse and misuse you." In order to do these things, you cannot see this other abusive person as a threat. Love and fear are mutually exclusive. As John wrote, "Love brought to completion tosses fear out."

     The threat and needs assessment system in the human brain is to what Paul was referring when he talked about "the flesh" in almost every case. As John wrote also, "God is love." Paul wrote, "Operate in the Spirit, and you will in no wise bring the works of the flesh to fulfillment." We must disengage from this threats and needs assessment system and submit to or cooperate with the Spirit of Christ in order to love so that it is God who acts and speak through us, because then it is Love Himself who will be responding to the other person, regardless of what they do or say.

The Difference Between "Preachers" and "Shepherds"

 It is still my opinion, and it has only grown stronger with time, that spending at least a year tending livestock should be a requirement for becoming a pastor. You don't really understand what it means to shepherd a flock until you've done it literally. There's a difference between a shepherd and a preacher. The preacher gets up into the pulpit every Sunday and spends an hour talking. The shepherd spends every day tending to the needs of their flock. The shepherd checks their water and food every day. The shepherd gets to know each one of them by name, their personalities, which animals tend to form a clique and which are left on the outside, which animals are the alphas and which are at the bottom of the ranking order. The shepherd observes who's getting enough food and who's not, who's taking too much, and who's being shoved away from the feed tin. Preachers observe none of these things. 

     The preachers who put on Sunday morning "shows" observe none of these things. Their job isn't to get to know and look after their charges, it's just to say a liturgy and preach for an hour once or twice a week. I just watched the film "Man of God" today about St. Nektarios of the Greek Orthodox Church. This man was a shepherd. He screamed "shepherd." Mother Theresa was a shepherd, too, regardless of her rank or status. I can think of others both real and fictional. 

     I myself wasn't a very good shepherd when I wore the collar. I didn't really understand what it meant. I loved being Jesus for people and giving Jesus to people in the Sacraments, but I didn't really get the actual shepherd part. I wish I had. I know I would have done things differently. If I had been able to relate to the people who came under my charge half as well as I find myself looking after and caring for the animals under my charge... Those goats, dogs, cats, and chickens have taught me more about pastoring than any of the courses I had ever taken in college, or many of the pastors I had ever seen.

All are Members of the Logos but Not All are In Communication with the Head

     I was reading this morning in “After” by Bruce Greyson, M.D. and I reached the chapter titled, “What About God?” For context, this book in the account of Dr. Greyson’s decades of research into Near Death Experiences, and contains many quotes and recountings from those who have experienced them. I highly, highly recommend this book because of Dr. Greyson’s methodical, science based approach to the topic. In general, the majority of NDEers encounter a Divine Being in some way. Frequently it is Jesus Christ, and then moving on to experiencing a Being they call “God” for lack of a better term, but it is universally understood that this term doesn’t do any justice to the overwhelming Source of Being, Love, Peace, and Acceptance that wraps them in His embrace.

     In many cases, the person experiencing the NDE also comes to the understanding that they, their soul or mind, is somehow the same as this Source, but not. They are a part of this Source, though distinct from it. As one person put it, “IT was me and IT was not me. I was IT and I was not IT. I was *in* IT, *of* IT, yet still simultaneously my individual unique beingness. I knew myself to be precisely precious to this Presence of Light and Sound, as if I was an atom of IT. A drop of the ocean is the essence of the ocean, though not the ocean; the ocean is not complete except for the existence of the presence of every single drop of which it is composed. That is how I related to the Light and Sound in which I was immersed.” (p. 156) I cannot help but be reminded of how Paul describes the Body of Christ in his letters, and how it is made up of many “members” or literally, “body-parts.” It is occurs to me that this is not as much of a metaphor as I was initially taught, but a deeper, and more literal truth. In Stoic philosophy, from where the concept of the Logos comes, there is this same understanding of all human beings holding a share, piece, or literally “shred” of the divine logos, and all human beings for this reason being children of the God. One Logos, one Head, but also many logoi which are a part of the Logos and are Sourced from the God and are parts or members of that one Logos.

     It is my opinion that the Body of Christ is made of its members with Christ as the head. From my reading, this is the same as the Logos in Stoic philosophy of which all human beings possess a piece, shred, or part of logos with the Logos as their head. My current thinking is that while all human beings possess this logos, not all are in obedience to, or under the control of, The Logos, that is, not all remain in communication with the Head like a member of the Body does with the brain through the nervous system. It is when a member of the body is in full communication with the head that it is able to function properly and normally. All are members of the body, but not all are in communication with the head. It is those who are properly in communication with the Head that are His disciples and can be considered to be properly functioning members of the Body of Christ. When these members are properly communicating and following the instructions of the Head, then it can be said that the Head is acting and speaking through them. 

     There are too many who call themselves Christians, from any denomination, who don't even know where to begin in proper communication with their Head. They aren't taught. They're taught doctrines, dogmas, and theologies, but they're not taught how to disengage from their own malfunctioning flesh and surrender to the Spirit of Christ, the Logos. This is equally true, and most dangerously true, of much of the visible Church's leadership. As Jesus said, frequently they do not enter the Kingdom themselves and they prevent others from entering as well.

What Is the Source of What I'm Doing? Why Do I Do It?

 Take a minute. Ask yourself what's motivating you to do what you're doing or say what you're saying? The other day, I really had to ask myself why I looked at the news, and what was motivating it. When it really got down to brass tacks, it was my threat response that was motivating it. I wanted to be informed. Why? Because I didn't want to be caught not knowing what was happening. Why? Because I wanted to be prepared if something went south, that is, if something went wrong and could possibly affect me or those I care about. This is a perfectly human response. It is also entirely governed by my brain's threat assessment and response system, not from any motivation stemming from the Spirit of Christ. I want to look at the news because I want to be aware of potential threats. There are, of course, other kinds of news, but even this has this undercurrent, if only subtly. It starts boiling down to how do I avoid threats and encourage desirable things, whatever those might happen to be? 

     This is, fundamentally, a perfectly normal, human way of looking at the world. It is the base, default way for looking at and assessing the world, really. It is also, at its very core, hamartia. Instead of being motivated by, in cooperation with, or under the control of the Spirit of Christ and displaying love, joy, peace, patience, trust, kindness, courtesy, and self-control; instead of these things, whether I have good intentions or not, I am looking to do away with threats and maximize whatever I consider necessities or desirable. 

     The Spirit of Christ is not concerned with threats or necessities because nothing can threaten Him, and He is already sufficient for everything. Threats and necessities are entirely the scope of the physical body, the brain's self-defense mechanism, but I, you, and we are not our physical bodies. We inhabit them temporarily before returning to our Source. This threat response system has its proper place in keeping the body alive and in procreation, but it cannot govern everything we do, and it is dysfunctional to where unless it is checked, that's exactly what it does. It always views everything in terms of threats or necessities, what it calls "bad" or "good."

     There is nothing inherently wrong with looking at the news, but I have to be aware of why, and what impact it has on me. Is it going to feed the fear response? Is it going to feed the aggression response? This is true of anything we engage with. Is it going to feed the feeding response? The sexual response? Again, these things are not wrong in and of themselves, but they become problems when they are what is driving us and do not shut down when they are supposed to. When left to its own devices, the brain will pursue all of these things with little to no control to varying degrees depending on the person's brain chemistry.

     Disengaging from this and engaging with or "enslaving oneself to" the Spirit of Christ allows the source of one's actions and words to be rooted in the God who is Love, and His Joy, Peace, Patience, and so on. It allows for this threat response system to shut down when it's appropriate for it to do so rather than try to govern all actions and events inappropriately.

     So, take a minute and really look at what is motivating you to do what you're doing. Ask this one simple question, "Why?"

The Disciple of Jesus Christ, Obeying the Law, and Swearing an Oath to Caesar

 I was recently re-reading the Martyrdom of Polycarp. Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna at the beginning of the second century and a contemporary of Ignatius the Bishop of Antioch who was martyred in 105CE. Polycarp himself would be martyred a few decades later at the age of 86. While the details of his death are extraordinary, the lesson which I want to focus on is why he was executed, because it was a real thing during this period.

     Put simply, Polycarp, like Ignatius, refused to acknowledge Caesar as his lord. He, like Ignatius and many, many other martyrs, refused to offer incense or sacrifice at the official imperial altars to Caesar. This wasn't just a religious offense, this was a civil one. By refusing to acknowledge the divinity or dominion of Caesar, whichever Caesar it happened to be at the time, they were committing treason against the Roman Empire as far as the empire was concerned, especially after the Christians were blamed by Nero for the fire which consumed Rome. What they were doing was illegal under Roman law, and punishable by death.

     My thoughts on this are these. Simply because something is the law doesn't make it right, and just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong. We've seen this again and again throughout history, and even into the modern day with various regimes around the world. One can look to the Nazi regime in Germany during the thirties and forties to see prime examples of this. Legality does not necessitate ethicality. 

     My second thought on the subject is to compare the view of these ancient Christians towards swearing allegiance to Caesar with the view of modern American Christianity towards their own government. Would modern American Christians refuse to swear allegiance to their government or call their head of state "Lord" today? Most believe that patriotism to one's country, and some today to their head of state specifically, goes hand in hand with their Christian faith. Would they have refused Caesar, or would they have gladly saluted him and sacrificed as good patriots?

     The Christian, the disciple of Jesus Christ, who lives as Jesus taught and walks as He walked is not ruled by laws of any kind, but by the love of God dictating what he says and does. He will obey those laws as long as they are consistent with this love, and when they are not, he cannot. The disciple of Jesus Christ lives by the Spirit of Christ acting and speaking through him, and in surrender to that Spirit so that it is God Himself who loves through him and acts and speaks through him. You need to pay taxes? Here you go. You need to park in a certain spot, or not? Sure. Murder and theft are out of the question because it is the love of God ruling him. But you want me to hurt someone? Not a chance. You want me to defraud someone, cause someone harm, or surrender myself to anyone other than Jesus Christ? Not going to happen no matter what laws are written down or what the penalty may be, and it's not going to happen because that person has surrendered control of himself to God and God Himself will not do these things. God Himself will love first, love always, and love without end.

     This is what Paul meant when he said that if you walk in the Spirit, then you are not subject to the law. Why would the God who is acting and speaking through you be subject to any human laws except as a courtesy? As Jesus taught, "the sons of the kingdom are free." Jesus Himself only bothered paying the temple tax as a courtesy to those who brought it up.

     Finally, Polycarp understood something few Christians today really get. No one can actually harm the real you except perhaps you yourself. What's interesting is that the Stoics understood this concept fairly well. They, like Polycarp, understood that someone else can only harm or possibly kill the body, but they cannot actually harm the "you" that is animating the body, and once you let go of the body, what harm can anyone actually do to you? As Jesus also taught, "don't fear those who can kill the body, but can't kill the soul..." As a result, Polycarp didn't run from those coming to arrest him. Instead, he fixed refreshments for them. He was given the choice several times to swear to Caesar and refuse Christ. He chose to be burned at the stake in Smyrna, and was a smart-alec about it too. 

Mexican Flags, Protests, and California's Uniqueness Among the States

I've been seeing that Fox News is making a big deal about Mexican flags being waved at the protests and exaggerating it beyond reason into a "Mexican Invasion." Having grown up in California, and 35 miles south of LA, let me explain why this is nonsense shouted by people who don't understand California, either it's history or culture. For some Californians, flying or displaying the Mexican flag is no different than folks from the South like Tennessee or Alabama displaying or flying the Confederate flag, a symbol of literal treason against the U.S. 

     California has a very different history from the Eastern half of the U.S. Its history wasn't shaped by the Civil War, the Reconstruction, or a lot of what happened east of the Mississippi. California was, at one time, a part of Mexico until it was annexed by the U.S. If you Google the demographics of California, it's 40% Hispanic, 37% White, and 15% Asian with other ethnicities such as Middle Eastern and African American rounding it out. There is no majority ethnicity there. 

      While there was a single Garrison there somewhere in California, it was otherwise uninvolved in the Civil War. Its history was defined by Spanish Missions, Mexican heritage, the Gold Rush, Vineyards, and heavy farming and ranching including the Citrus Groves in SoCal that Orange County was named for. Many Chinese immigrated to California in the mid eighteen hundreds. After Saigon fell in 1975, many, many Vietnamese immigrated to Southern California. When I was a kid growing up in SoCal, it was said that there were two hundred languages spoken on a daily basis in Orange Country alone, and at least sixty spoken in my high school. California, more than any other state in the Union, is truly a culture and civilization of immigrants. Most of its white residents were themselves immigrants to California in the 1800s, as prior to this, its population was made up entirely of Mexican and Native American peoples (and here Mexican means descended from the Mexica or Aztec peoples). 

     There is in LA and other parts of SoCal in particular, because of California's history, a nativist movement that still believes California is or should be Mexican. Their numbers are very few, and to be honestly, no one's ever really taken them seriously. But they, and others of Mexican descent there who aren't quite so delusional, whether citizen or immigrant, are still fiercely proud of their heritage. It shouldn't really surprise anyone that the ICE raids targeting Hispanic people in particular would have triggered them in such a way as was seen in Downtown LA. They see it, citizen or not, as a threat against themselves and their people, their tribe if you will. To what lengths would you go to protect your people and your family from being kidnapped and assaulted? The truth is, what should surprise people is the restraint they've shown so far.

     No one in California wants any of this. Of this, I am absolutely certain. I guarantee you, everyone there just wants to live their lives in peace without having to worry about whether or not their mother, father, or child is just going to disappear at the agency of the Federal Government. There would have been no protests at all if ICE hadn't been conducting the raids in the belligerent way they have been. If they had come with warrants, if they had come in marked cars identifying themselves without masks, if they had only targeted actual violent criminals like they were supposed to, if they hadn't treated innocent people like animals, then there would have been no protests. There would have been no cars burning. 

     The blame for these protests and violence must lie squarely on the shoulders of those who conducted the raids, and those superiors who ordered them.