The Original "Christian Witch"

 Today I learned that "Christian Witches" are a thing. My discovery started with a YouTube video which showed up in my feed, and I ended up going to their website to learn more about this contradiction in terms. Even after perusing their FAQ, I still wasn't sure how these two things didn't contradict each other. But then I got to thinking about another possible "Christian Witch," though I'm not sure she would have ever described herself as such.
     Mariam of Migdol. You know her as Mary the Magdalene. What's really interesting about the word "Magdalene" is that while Magdala was a fishing village near Migdol, this word is never used to apply to anyone else from the region. There is another possible meaning for this appellation with just a couple of sound changes. It highly resembles two Greek words smashed together, "Magos" and "deleomai" or one of its cognates. The first one means "sorcerer," the second as a compound cognate can be construed as meaning "one who causes mischief or hurts by magic potions." In other words, Mariam from Migdol was what we might call a "witch." In my humble opinion, the Gospel writers changed certain sounds of her "surname" so that it wasn't quite so offensive to her memory.
      Consider it fiction or not, here is how I think of her.
     Mariam of Migdol was born to a priestess of Cybele at a smaller shrine to that goddess in Migdol. She was one of two fraternal twins, the other being her brother Thomas. Because Thomas was born male, their mother made him eunuch at a very early age because no intact male could serve at the altar of Cybele. Ritual prostitution, spellcraft, and the brewing of potions to either harm or heal were how she and her brother were raised and taught by her mother. To this end, she was taught to read Latin so that she could read the spell texts that were brought there from the temple in Rome. She and her brother were raped, sexually abused, and she in particular was subjected to horrific rites from early on by their mother. This upbringing from a very young age eventually split her mind and she developed what we would now call Dissociative Identity Disorder with seven personalities inside of her. When she was a young teenager, she escaped. It was only later that her brother was able to follow her and be reunited with her. From then on, she fiercely protected him, and he to the extent he could, to protect her.
     Mariam took what she knew and survived in a world that would just as easily stone her for what she was. She used her knowledge of spellcraft and potion making to develop a powerful and terrifying reputation. Her DID only added to the fear that surrounded and even protected her and her brother. She made potions to both heal and to harm. She made poisons for those who paid her with no questions asked. She made potions that could induce abortions; something that both common woman and wealthy elites came to her for, and not just the women, but their husbands too. People would come to her to put a spell on someone they wanted to suffer. There was a power of presence that radiated from her by the time she was introduced to Jesus by her brother.
      Her DID was becoming worse than Thomas had ever seen it. The "demons" were so out of control she could no longer truly function with any normalcy and he was afraid of what she might do, or what might be done to her. He had heard of Jesus and listened to the things He said, as well as having seen the things he could do. He was the only one who could approach his sister without fear, and he brought her to Jesus. Suddenly, the "demons" were gone and she was in a right mind she hadn't been in a long time. She was whole and perfectly sane. No one had every shown her the kindness Jesus had without demanding something in return. But He wanted nothing, only that she be able to live in peace.
      Not long after, maybe a day, maybe two, she knew Jesus had been invited to a dinner by a wealthy Pharisee. She knew the man. He'd been one of her "customers" along with several others among his peers. She knew where he lived. She wanted to do something for Jesus and she knew at least then where He would be. She didn't know exactly what she would do, only that she would think of something.
      She entered the house. No one dared stop her or tell her "no." That was like attempting to stop the "Baba Yaga" in their minds. She might put a curse on them. She might poison them just by looking at them. She found Jesus reclining at the table and quickly assessed what had happened. She looked at His feet which had not been washed as should have happened for an invited guest. She briefly stared daggers at Simon before settled on what she would do for Jesus, but as she knelt down at his feet, the flood of emotion consumed her. She started sobbing. Twenty years of abuse and hardship flooded out from her eyes and it all fell on His feet. She then used the water from her eyes to wash them properly, and removed her veil, humbling herself before Jesus in a way she had never allowed herself to be humbled by any man since leaving Migdol, to use her hair to dry them.
     Simon stammered a protest quietly as though she might not be able to hear him. But Jesus wasn't having any of it. He stood up and defended her in front of everyone. The only man in her life to stand up for her when He didn't have to, and someone who clearly had to be a real prophet no less! So much more, He shamed them and praised her!
     After that day, she was never far from Him. She took it upon herself to look after His needs from her own considerable stores. Whatever He needed she made sure He had it. She was the kind of person that once she was certain you were really her friend, that was it. Her loyalty and concern knew no bounds. And with Jesus, she was more devoted than any real wife could have been with a husband, even though they were neither. There was no "romance". But she made sure He ate. When she was concerned about His health, she acquired a horse and rode for two days to find and bring a Greek physician she knew back to Jesus to look after Him when her own skills failed. Everything came from her own pockets. She would eventually learned other healing skills from that same physician as he also traveled with Jesus, and gradually abandon the spellcraft that once was her and her brother's shield. It was she who broke open the flask of Nard spiked with Myrrh over Jesus' feet at the last supper in preparation for His burial. The Nard came from her own dwindling stores of ingredients which she had not fully sold off or disposed of by that point. It was some of her last.
     And on that day when He was taken for trial, she stood with His mother and His cousin John (His mother's nephew) through the entire travesty of justice as a member of His family, and neither His mother or cousin, His best friend, denied her that position. It is no accident that she was there that morning with His mother and His mother's sister to try and properly embalm the body. It is no accident that she lingered sobbing when she thought His body had been taken. Her whole world for the last three years had been placed in that tomb, and now He was just "gone." This is why it was no accident that she was the first one He appeared to, and why He tenderly called her by name when she couldn't see who He was through her tears. It's also why she grabbed Him and refused to let go, and why He gently told her not to cling to Him.
     Mariam of Migdol was an extraordinary woman. She was confident, powerful, and a survivor in a world that didn't want her. But she was also a fierce friend, a deeply sensitive and caring person, and loyal beyond a fault. She was courageous, compassionate, intelligent, and beautiful in every way.
      This is how I choose to imagine her. She deserves to never be forgotten for who she was, not who "tradition" bastardized her to be.

There Is No Point In Judging The Flesh

 It is pointless to try and tame the flesh and bend it to your will. That is, your brain will always see everything in terms of threats and needs, fear and desire. Nothing will really change this because that is what it does. It assesses the threat or need and reacts with fear that either it's going to happen or fear that the need isn't going to be met. It then becomes aggressive (or runs as the case may be). I was reflecting on this thought this morning after watching myself get frustrated with the animals and the extreme heat and reacting badly. I then started feeling really badly and getting upset that I wasn't a better person. Animals are going to be animals. They're not going to act in any other way than they are. I know this. Getting frustrated or angry isn't going to change that, but I still did. It went against my own self perception of a kind person, also generated by the brain. As a result, I then became the threat, and then the cognitive dissonance, the "fatal error," really went into overdrive with guilt, shame, and wondering whether I had really learned or practiced anything at all.
     And then I remembered, that's the point. Like the animals, the flesh, the dysfunctional survival system in the brain and the thoughts which it generates and reacts to, is going to do what it's going to do. That's not going to change until the flesh dies. Being upset that "I'm not a better person" is pointless. I'm not my brain, my thoughts, or even my body. It's my choice whether or not to confuse myself with the flesh. It's my choice whether or not to be aware of this and to let go of obeying its responses and taking the bait it drops. It's my choice to operate according to the Spirit, the Logos, or not.
      This "real me" is quiet. It's patient. It loves, taking no thought for itself because it doesn't need to. It's at peace. This "real me" doesn't react to anything as either a threat or a need because nothing can threaten it and it has no needs. Those things belong to the flesh, the brain, the body. The "real me" functions connected to the Head, the "seminal Logos," who is Jesus Christ. 
      There is no point in judging the flesh. It's going to react how it's going to react. It's going to do what it's going to do. It is neither good nor evil. It just is. It is the flesh judging the flesh in a downward spiral whether it agrees with its own reactions or not. Just be aware of it and do not engage with it. Just be aware of your thoughts, but do not let them dictate to you. Engage with the Spirit. Ask Him to act and speak through you with intention and He will. But getting upset because your flesh does not change is pointless. 

Guilt Is Not From God

      Guilt is not from God. We do not feel guilty because God is making us feel guilty. Guilt is a product of our common human malfunction. It is the result of something we’ve done or said conflicting with our own self-image as a morally good person. In psychology, this is called “cognitive dissonance.” The same can be said for shame, which is linked to guilt. This is why guilt and shame can linger over mistakes made far in the past even after we learn that we are forgiven by God. It is not God who needs to forgive because He was never holding those things which caused guilt and shame against us to begin with. It is not God who needs to forgive, it is we ourselves who need to accept that these things happened, drop them, and let them go. He does not hold our mistakes against us, and He is not the one who incites guilt within ourselves. That is caused by our own brains, our own amygdalae specifically, the cognitive dissonance when we have done something contrary to what we believe to be the "good" or "right" thing and it conflicts with our self-image as a "good" person.
     This is why there were sacrifices for unintentional wrongdoing in the Mosaic Law, but no sacrifices for intentional wrongdoing. There were sacrifices meant to assuage or propitiate the internal guilt felt for mistakes and wrongs committed unintentionally. By performing a symbolic action to “atone” for that unintentional wrong, that mistake, the internal guilt and shame can be appeased. These were for our psychological health, not for any need of “justice” on His part. But when someone did something wrong intentionally, they were meant to suffer the consequences of their actions as a means of correction. This is also why the Sanctuary cities existed for people who committed unintentional homicide. It was a mistake, and so He meant to shield them from avengers. This is why David was made to suffer for Uriah’s death and for adultery with his wife. It was a corrective action because David’s wrongdoing was intentional. God’s purpose was not to destroy David, but to correct and teach him. This is His purpose with every soul that He would bring that soul to completion. 
     God's justice is not our justice. God doesn't punish us for our mistakes, especially those we never intended to make. He corrects us for when we intentionally do wrong, but the intention of the correction is to set us on the right path like any good Father would do. It is not retribution for retribution’s sake. God does not hold our wrongs against us, and especially not to torture us forever for them. His goal is reconciliation and restoration, maturity, and union with Himself for all of us, not losing any of us to be tortured forever. He is the one who will leave the ninety nine to seek and save the one. He is the Father who takes no thought for the past wrongs of his son but runs to embrace him when he comes to his senses and comes home.

What "Sin" or the "Sin Nature" Actually Is

 Around 2014-15, I started trying to understand what "sin" actually is from two things. First, the actual meanings of the words "khata'," in the Old Testament, and "hamartia," in the New Testament, in the original languages. The former is an archery term and the latter a javelin throwing term and both meaning the same thing, "to miss the target". What I came to discover the more I looked into "hamartia" in particular, being in the language of the New Testament, was that there was an implied unintentionality to this word. This comes out actually very strongly in the Greek Septuagint translation of Leviticus, for example, where there were sacrifices made available for "hamartia" but no sacrifices made available for intentional wrongdoing. In other words, if someone made a mistake, a sacrifice could be brought. If someone deliberately did something, no sacrifice was available for propitiation but that person had to suffer the penalty which the Torah prescribed. In ancient Greek, this word came to mean error, mistake, or the "fatal flaw" by which a hero perished in Greek Tragedy. In other words, it's most basic meaning is that something happened which wasn't intended to or supposed to happen. As such, I have also come to render it at times as "malfunction," or when it is in the plural, "malfunctioning behaviors."

The second thing I started from was two things Paul said about hamartia in Romans which I think have been overlooked too much. The first thing he says in Romans 5 is that it is inherited in that our first ancestor "sinned" so too all human beings descended from him are afflicted with it. The second thing he says is in Romans 7, and this is really interesting to me because he says that it is located "in the flesh." As you probably know, the word here is "sarx" and it literally means the flesh of an animal or human being, that is, the meat, skin, organs, etc. I know the NIV and maybe a few others render it "sin nature" but this is an interpretive translation and not a literal one. It's based on the translator's own theological biases. Paul located hamartia within the physical, biological flesh of a human being. So, according to Paul, Hamartia is inherited from our first ancestor and it is physically or biologically based. It should be noted that, contrary to popular theological teaching, nowhere in Scripture is "sin" ever called "spiritual" or implied to be of a "spiritual" nature.

Once I came to this conclusion, I asked two questions, "What if Paul meant what he literally said?" and "Is there any way to locate where 'in the flesh' it might be?" This led to my taking a psychology major at Orange Coast College. I reasoned that if hamartia is located "in the flesh" then it has to be in the brain because it deals with human behavior, and the source of human behavior is in the brain. Paul described it as an "error" or a "malfunction" or "fatal flaw" when he used the word hamartia. This suggested that there was a flaw or an error in the human brain. As I went through my coursework, one particular part of the brain stood out: the limbic system and specifically the hypothalamus and the amygdala. These are the parts of the brain responsible for our survival responses of fear, aggression, feeding, and sex, and in women, childbirth (this last one caught my attention because of Genesis 3). The hypothalamus is what controls these responses, but the amygdala is kind of like the gateway to the hypothalamus. It essentially tells the hypothalamus when to engage and when not to.

One of the things I did next was I went back and looked at everything Paul described as the "works of the flesh," now understanding this in a far more literal sense. In particular in Galatians, what I saw now was that every single thing Paul lists, every single behavior, can be attributed to one or more of these survival responses in some way. People commit murder out of fear. They steal out of fear. They commit adultery out of the drive for sex. They overeat or overindulge out of the drive to eat. All of these are neurologically based, biologically based responses to different situations and stimuli. Any behavior born from the fear, aggression, feeding, or sex response is a "work of the flesh" as contrasted with the "fruit of the Spirit" which is not born from "the flesh," that is, anything biologically based.

One of the things about the brain's survival response system is that, in virtually all other animals, it is meant to deal with physical threats or needs. That is, if an animal is threatened, it responds by either running from the threat or attempting to fight or destroy the threat. Once the threat is averted, the system is meant to shut down. Again, if an animal needs food, it directs the animal to eat. It also controls the sexual drive meant for reproduction in order for the animal to propagate. But once these needs are met, it is meant to go back into standby.

It does not fully do this in human beings, and it does not just do this with perceived physical threats and needs. Instead, it does it with things remembered or imagined. It does it with perceived likes or dislikes. It does it when one's "self-identity" is threatened, or it feels the need to propagate the things with which the self identifies. In short, it does it with perceived physical, psychological, emotional, and even spiritual needs or threats. In other words, it does it with "everything." It is my contention that this is also the source of what we call "good" and "bad" or "evil." Those things we like are treated as needs and therefore "good". Those things we dislike for any reason are treated as "threats" and are dealt with accordingly. We tend to crave and hoard those things we like, and we tend to push away, run from, or attempt to destroy those things we dislike. In short, our survival response system as human beings is stuck in overdrive, or is at least way too sensitive and far more sensitive then it was ever intended to be.

Another thing I ran into in my studies of this is that the human amygdala is disproportionately larger than in any other primate. It is four times larger than our closest genetic animal cousins the chimpanzee and the bonobo. Recently, I read an article where a correlation was made between a larger left amygdala and a higher intolerance for differences. So, the size of the amygdala directly impacts the scope of its function. My conclusion to all of this is that, because of an abnormal enlargement, relatively speaking, our amygdala as human beings is reacting and responding to things as threats or needs that it was never originally designed to react to. Now, this does not make it "evil," nor what it is trying to do "evil." It means though that it is not functioning in the way it was supposed to or intended to. In short, it is attempting to fulfill its original program by protecting us from threats and fulfilling physical needs but, I believe the evidence points to, its physical parameters have changed and now it's "malfunctioning." I had some experience with a similar problem with a machine in a job I once worked as a Laser Drill Technician where the machine was still following its program, but a slight flaw with the power output produced circuit boards that were entirely useless (I lost my job over that). Even the smallest change in the hardware parameters produced catastrophic results, and it is a similar thing with our amygdala.

So, our Hamartia is an enlarged amygdala processing "everything" as either a survival threat or a survival need and attempting to respond accordingly and mostly with fear of some degree. This is why I liken us to a child with a neurodevelopmental or behavioral disorder, because in a way, that is exactly what is happening. Now as to how it happened, my hypothesis is that it had something to do with a reaction to something found in the fruit which our ancestors ate. We know compounds can alter human genetics both immediately and in pregnancy, and some compounds can alter genes and pass down mutations. I think something in it caused our amygdalas to enlarge more than they were supposed to producing the aberrant, "sinful" behaviors as it attempted to protect us from things it really didn't need to.

Jesus Taught Detachment

 What most Christians don't realize is that one of the core principles Jesus taught is detachment. That is, a letting go. When you look carefully, it undergirds everything He teaches in the Gospels right there along with loving kindness and compassion.
     Think about the conditions of discipleship laid out expressly in Luke. If you're too attached to your family relationships, you can't be His disciple. If you're too attached to your possessions, you can't be His disciple. If you're too attached to your own soul or self-identity, you can't be His disciple. 
     Jesus taught, "Don't judge and you won't be judged." Judgment is a kind of attachment to beliefs about right and wrong. Jesus taught "forgive and you will be forgiven." The word translated as forgive literally means "to drop from the hand," that is, to let go or to detach. 
     Think about the conditions He laid out for both the twelve and the seventy He sent out to prepare the towns and cities for His visits. Take nothing with you. Or the condition he laid on the "rich young ruler" when asked what he needed to do to inherit eternal life, "go, sell everything you own, give it to the poor, then come and follow Me."
     Being a disciple of Jesus Christ, learning how to live as Jesus taught and walk as He walked, requires that we let go of... "everything" that would keep us from it. Why? Because He did. Jesus had let go of family that would have held Him back. He let go of any possessions or sense of a stable job or income. He let go of everything that did not contribute to His one goal of doing what His Father wanted. His disciples were required to live the same way. Jesus practiced detachment.
      We don't like this word because we associate caring with attachment. We associate love with attachment. How can you love if you have no attachment to a thing? But that's the dysfunctional human brain talking. Attachment is not love. It's not kindness. Attachment is about what someone or something means to you. What they can do for you. Love is about what you can do for the other person. Love and attachment are two very different things. Genuine love lets the other person go for them to be who they were meant to be. It does not cling, and it does not push away. It wants the best for the other person. Genuine love understands that things, people, ideas, and identities change, grow, and move on and it lets them. It is not unseated because someone or something is no longer a part of its life for a time. It does not cling to them.
     The human brain doesn't like this. It clings to things and people it thinks it needs to survive, and it equates "happiness" with survival. It will enslave itself to the service or care of a thing or a person if it means it gets to be happy, if it gets to receive dopamine or serotonin from it. We call this addiction. Jesus required His disciples to break their addictions because they weren't going to be able to live as He taught and walk as He walked if they didn't. 

What Does It Mean To Worship?

 What does it mean to worship?
In the Greek text of the New Testament, there are two words usually used, "latreuo" and "proskuneo". The first one means in ancient Greek something like "to serve as a priest in religious rites" while the second means "to prostrate oneself before someone". Think about those two pictures which these words give. The primary concept of worship in the language and culture of the New Testament is to serve and obey the object of that worship. What does "to serve" mean? It means to do whatever that person tells you to do. Again, it means to obey and attend to the object of that service in question.
        Now, in John 4, Jesus tells the woman at the well that God is Spirit, and those prostrating themselves before (worshiping) Him must do so with Spirit and with Truth. It's not optional. So, if someone is to actually "worship" God, it must be done with Spirit and with Truth. That is, that person must serve and obey Him honestly and not with the flesh, but with the Spirit. Anything else is not actually worship. And this holds up when we look at the Old Testament prophets who were very clear that God despised the "worship" of those who kept His festivals but trampled on the poor, the outcast, the widow, and the orphan. They were going through the motions, but they were neither serving nor obeying what He actually wanted which was mercy, compassion, fairness, and love.
     There are many in churches today who sing the songs, get emotional, recite the liturgies, perform the sacraments, and hit all the right performative notes, but through their words and actions outside, or often even inside, disregard, disobey, and make light of what He actually wants. They explain it away as common sense or being practical. These people are not worshiping Him at all.
     Genuine worship of the God and Father of Jesus Christ is, first and foremost to love the person next to you like yourself. It is to treat others as you want to be treated. It is to forgive, and to not pass judgment. It is to care for the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner and to defend them. These are the acts of worship which He has repeatedly asked for. Not songs. Not liturgy. Not sacrifices. Not performative shows and theater. Love. Compassion. Mercy.
     Until you engage with these, until you do these things, you are not worshiping Him and it's best to keep your songs, liturgies, and religious rites to yourself. They disgust Him.

The Divinity of Jesus Christ

 People will argue about Jesus' divinity. Christians have been somewhat debating what it means since the first century. Jesus Himself never denied His own divinity, but in the passage where He quotes the psalm which says, "I said you are gods" and speaking to human beings, He also affirmed a divinity for other human beings as well. That it was John who recorded this is no accident.
     The key to understanding what this means is when John calls Jesus the "Logos". This was not a new concept to the first century reader. This was an old idea first really conceptualized among the Stoic philosophers. Just about everything Paul says about "the Christ" the first and second century Stoics said about the Logos. The Logos was the "firstborn of all creation" by "the God". Every human being carried a piece, shred, or part of the Logos while the "seminal Logos" was the point of origin and "head" over all. John records that the Logos existed "next to" the God, and that the Logos was Deity, that is, the Logos was of the same "substance" as the God yet distinct from the God. A Stoic would have 100% agreed with this statement. But what this also means is that every human being carries a shred or piece of the divine within themselves and are themselves a part of the greater whole of the Logos.
     The implication of John's statement that "the Logos became flesh and camped out among us" is that this is the “seminal” Logos, the Logos from which all others come, who took on flesh, as obviously a piece of the Logos takes on flesh every time a human being is born. And He took on flesh without the error which afflicts the rest of us which meant that He was in full possession or communion with the divine from His birth. The Logos was calling the God His Father, again a statement no Stoic would argue with, and Stoicism was as ubiquitous a worldview in the first century Roman empire as Christian evangelicalism is today.
     The key here is that Jesus never limited the God's fatherhood to just Himself. Even in "the Lord's Prayer" it begins with "Our Father..." not "My Father". And then there's the prayer in John 17 where Jesus prays, "that they may all be one, just as you Father are in Me, and I in them, so that they might be one in us." Interesting thing about the Greek of "one" in this passage. It's neuter. It literally means, "one thing." And of course there's Paul's description of the "Body of Christ" where Christ is the Head and the rest of us are body parts of the same body. Again, swap out the word "Christ" for "Logos" and it becomes instantly agreeable to a Stoic mind. So the thing, if anything, the Church has missed in the last 2,000 years, and not all of it, is that the divinity which Jesus owned He didn't limit to Himself. Instead, He was trying to teach His disciples how to access and live in it for themselves by connecting to and staying put within Himself, that is, the Logos.

"Wherever you are, I Am"

 "Wherever you are, I Am."
This is the message I got this morning.
It's funny, a while ago I started reading many of the books I was warned against by my initial Christian faith tradition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Gospel of Buddha, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, and many others. And instead of leading me away from Jesus Christ, they all led me straight back to Him, complimenting His teachings and making me see them in different ways. I started asking questions, started learning psychology and the workings of the brain in order to answer those questions, and it still led me straight back to Him. Not to the interpretations or theology about Him, but to Him. Now, I've been watching the series "Lucifer" of all things, where the actual devil is the main protagonist "anti-hero", and still, it leads me back to Him and His Father who is love who isn't willing that any should be destroyed but that all should come to redemption.
     In Evangelical Protestantism, really, you're taught to be afraid of a lot of things, depending on the church in question. You're taught to stay away from anything which might disagree. You're taught to not question. You're taught the devil is this huge monster waiting for you to put a toe out of line. Fear is what laces everything. Somehow God is omnipresent, but not in those dark spaces where they don't want you to look. God is everywhere, but apparently not in hell. God is infinite except for these boundaries here.
      God is everywhere, even in the darkness. The true darkness is only you shutting your eyes and plugging your ears to Him. He hasn't gone anywhere. God reveals Himself in everything if you've eyes to see and ears to hear. 
     The other day I got acquainted with a song I had only heard a couple of times before, and then only parts of it in passing, "One of Us," by Joan Osborne. It asks the question, "What if God was one of us?" As I learned, upon its release, many within evangelical protestantism condemned it as blasphemous. Many protested at her concerts.
     But isn't this question answered by the incarnation? You know, when God actually became one of us? When divinity was born as a human being who had to eat, sleep, and poop like the rest of us? Who sweated, got tired, got thirsty, had to deal with a plugged nose every once in a while, and so on?
     It was Mother St. Theresa of Calcutta who said that she saw the face of Christ in the poor and dying she served, and when she washed them, stayed with them as they were dying, and took care of them, she was doing so to Christ.
      What if God was one of us?
     It was Jesus Himself who said whoever feeds the hungry, gives water to the thirsty, visits the sick or the imprisoned, clothes the naked, welcomes the foreigner, that they do it to Him. Jesus was directly saying that how we treat others is how we treat Him. He was also asking the question, "What if God was one of us?" and answering it with, "Treat every human being as if it was Him."
     Sometimes I think the god that many churches want is Zeus, or Ba'al, or Marduk, or one of the pagan warrior gods who, if you propitiate them enough they'll fight for you and give you what you ask. But that's not the God and Father of our Owner Jesus Christ. The God who has already revealed Himself through His Son, and continues to reveal Himself within and through each one of us as He works to reconcile each and every one of us to Himself and will not stop or give up until He has accomplished His goal. He doesn't need to conquer. He already owns everything and only loans it to us for a few moments. He's already given us everything we could ever need. We're the ones who hoard it and keep it from each other. He's always present and willing to work with us and bring us into union with Himself. We're the ones who choose blindness to Him.
     "Wherever you are, I Am." That's the message He gives this morning. He'll meet us right where we're at, and will gently guide us with our cooperation like a guide to a stubborn blind man to where we need to go.

The Character of God in the Television Series "Lucifer"

      I finished binge watching season one of "Lucifer" yesterday. I've seen seasons five and six, but was hesitant to see the first one because I wasn't sure I wanted to see the main character when he was at his worst, before his growth and redemption arc. But I got it anyway, for a good price too, and decided to have a gander. What surprised me most was in discovering that this growth and redemption arc began from the word “go” in the pilot. But what continued to amaze me is to see how the character of God is actually portrayed in the series.
     Underneath the obvious surface blasphemy inherent to the series is actually a portrayal of a God, Lucifer's Father, who cares deeply for His son, and all of His children. It's a portrayal of a Father who had a plan for Lucifer's life for him to grow past his narcissism, self-absorption, and self-indulgence, but it required him coming to growth and conclusions on his own. In the series, much to Lucifer's misunderstanding, God sent him to govern hell for his own growth and to teach him compassion for the suffering of others. Instead, Lucifer believed it was his assignment to judge and torture the guilty. As a result, he became the mythological face of evil and blamed for all the human evils in the world, an image which hurt him tremendously and he felt was forced onto him unjustly. He believed his Father didn't love him, even though he yearned for it and never stopped loving Him though he hid it even from himself. He rebelled and lost and was locked out of Heaven. But God's plan took this into account as well.
     In the series, Lucifer decides he's had enough of hell and enters Earth with no intentions of returning. He has his servant Mazikeen cut off his angel wings to ensure it. He sets himself up as a wealthy nightclub owner in L.A. and attempts to “reinvent” himself. Then, five years later, he meets Detective Chloe Decker, L.A.P.D., who is totally immune to his supernatural charms, something which has never happened to him before. What neither of them know at the time is that Chloe was born specifically as a "gift" to him: the one woman immune to his charms and so she was free to choose him or not for who he himself was. He also meets and begins seeing a psychologist, Dr. Linda Martin, who at first believes he's completely delusional but goes with it anyway. Dr. Martin begin getting Lucifer to see things in a different way and begins making breakthroughs with him almost in spite of his total cluelessness about his own psychology, and between his therapist and his budding relationship with Chloe, her daughter, and her group of friends and coworkers at the L.A.P.D., he begins to change and grow.
     And all the while throughout the series, his Father keeps gently reminding him that He's there, He's got a plan for him, and He works with Lucifer where he's at. He doesn't really push, He waits. When Lucifer does call out to Him, not for himself even when he's dying but to save Chloe's life, His Father responds by healing him, sending him back to rescue Chloe, and giving him a task he's suited for. When Lucifer's Father shows up bodily in season four, He's kind, non-judgmental, and always has a look of deep concern and compassion for everyone. He's also presented as fair, and knowing everything that's going on even when another brother of Lucifer's tries to twist the truth. He intentionally makes Himself human and mortal, ostensibly to be a part of Lucifer's world for a while, and when He puts Himself in real physical danger, Lucifer becomes protective of Him stating "no one hurts my dad!" perhaps surprising even himself as he realizes that he still loves and cares for Him.  Again, part of his Father's plan to heal and redeem His fallen son. By the end of the series, Lucifer finally understands His Father's intention all along. It was never about punishing him, but entrusting him with the care and treatment of fallen souls so that they too could be ultimately redeemed and sent on to "the silver city," because He didn't want anyone to remain in hell forever. For as much of a "bad father" picture that the character Lucifer complains about, the show itself reveals God to be the "hound of heaven" who refused to give up on His hurt, angry, rebellious, fallen son.
     And Lucifer is not the only one whom his Father’s plan affects. Amenadiel, Lucifer’s brother is sent ostensibly to recover him and return him to hell. When we first meet him, he’s harsh, judgmental, and without compassion. He just want’s to get the job done and return home by any means necessary and he becomes one of season one’s “villains”, lying, deceiving, and even trying to get Lucifer killed once he discovers his growing mortality so that he can return him to hell that way. But then he learns the human cost of his actions. The deaths of innocents which he cannot justify. He understands the wrong he has committed even while trying to do the “right” thing. He then really starts trying to understand humanity and take part in it, and in so doing, he learns to care and have compassion. And you can see his Father’s hand here as he begins to truly reflect God’s love and become like his Father by the end of the series, and eventually, reluctantly inherits the throne of heaven after He retires (no, not theologically accurate by any means).
     There is also Mazikeen, Lucifer’s demon servant. She begins the series focused on nothing but sex, violence, serving her boss, and wanting to return home. But as the series progresses, she too is made to really confront her past and her traumas, and she begins to actually make friends, to grow beyond what anyone expected of her. In season four, she asks Lucifer’s Father for a soul. He responds that “you’re perfect just the way you are.” Angry and believing He denied her, she storms out. But then in a later conversation, it’s revealed that He couldn’t give her what she had already grown herself. Again, His plan throughout the show included more than just redeeming Lucifer.
     If we were to go through all of the characters in this series, we can see Lucifer’s Father’s hand touching all of them directly and indirectly, gently guiding them to self reflection, growth, and ultimately their redemption. Even with the main villains of seasons five and six who do end up in hell. Once Lucifer returns, he returns as its chief therapist working to help them and all the souls trapped there to work through their guilt and pain so that they can be freed to move on to heaven.
So really, this is a show about God working behind the scenes gently to bring about the best possible outcomes for everyone while working within their free will and not against it. He’s infinitely patient with all of them. Never responds harshly to anyone. Never actually turns anyone away. Puts up with continuous accusations and verbal abuse from everyone, and in the end, ensures that all of them reach their full healing and completion just the way He planned.
     Regardless of the polytheistic theology, isn’t that the essence of who God actually is? Love?

Homosexuals Will Enter The Kingdom of Heaven Before the Self-Righteous Christian

 Homosexuals, prostitutes, "non-Christians," "tax collectors," the poor, and the homeless will all enter the kingdom of heaven long before the self-righteous religious person will. Scripture is clear about this that it is the "sinner" who turns around who goes home made right, not the self-righteous religious person resting on his or her laurels.
     Who goes to Gehenna? Jesus was absolutely clear on this subject. Those who see those in need and refuse to help. Those who refuse to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner and the sick. He was clear that everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and according to John, no murderer has eternal life remaining in him. Every human being alive is a descendant of the same man and woman whether you look at either Scripture or genetics. Every human being alive is from the same tribe, the same clan, the same family. We are all brothers and sisters. If you hate another human being, you do not have eternal life within you. Scripture is clear on this subject.
     If you do not love, you do not know God because God is love. Scripture is also clear on this subject. If you do not have love, you are nothing and have nothing, and like Jesus said, if you do not have, what little you think you have will be taken from you.
     You claim the blood of Christ? You claim to believe in Jesus? The devil believes in Jesus and Gehenna was made for his kind. Your faith without love will not save you because faith without love is a faith without God and God alone saves. Don't tell me how much you love Jesus, how much you believe in Jesus if you continue to hate your brother, your fellow human being. The outer darkness awaits you, where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.
     If you refuse to follow His even His simplest teachings to love your neighbor as yourself and treat others as you want to be treated, you trample the blood of Jesus Christ underfoot. God does not take kindly to this. He takes an even dimmer view when you teach others to do the same. You build up wrath for yourself with your utter blasphemy.
     Turn around. Set aside your hate. Embrace love, mercy, compassion. Don't judge and you won't be judged. But if you persist, you will taste suffering in eternity until you come to your senses and embrace Love Himself.
      The gay person marching in a pride parade will enter the kingdom of heaven before the "Christian" who condemns them. The prostitute will feast with Abraham before the Christian nationalists. The immigrant will enter the wedding feast fully clothed before the Republican that seeks their harm. Unstop your ears and listen! If you continue on this path you do so to your own destruction.

How to Actually Defeat Trump and MAGA

 I want to talk about the latest "assassination attempt" on Trump, but first we need to talk about Nero.
     Nero reigned for fourteen years as emperor. When the great fire which burned close to half of Rome broke out, he needed a scapegoat. He somewhat arbitrarily chose Christians as they tended to be headquartered in the Trans Tiberum district and that district was known for gangs of arsonists. Of course there was no proof. What followed was years of being hunted brutally, using them for sport in the arenas and Coliseum, even covering them with pitch and using them as torches for his gardens. Nero was deranged. He murdered his wife and then made a eunuch out of a slave and dressed him up as his dead wife. He is literally considered to be the archetype of the Beast found in the Book of Revelation. He became so unhinged that his own Praetorian guard finally put an end to him because they perceived he was an imminent threat to the empire itself. 
     But in all of this, you will never read once of Christians attempting to end him themselves. There were no Christian resistance movements. There were no presbyters or bishops arming themselves and preaching open defiance (with the one exception that they would not make sacrifices to either the Roman gods or Caesar himself). 
     What you do find in ancient Christian writings are a willingness to be thrown to the lions. A willingness to go to the cross, be beheaded, be boiled in oil, and a refusal to do or say anything contrary to what Jesus taught. They literally sang hymns while they burned to death. Jesus taught to love your enemies, they practiced it. They eventually transformed the Roman empire, not by force of arms, but by loving their enemies, practicing what Jesus preached, and forgiving those who were hurting them. As a result, they multiplied until the emperor in the fourth century saw it necessary to legalize them and his son, to enshrine their religion into Roman law. What you find in the writings of the first two centuries are people willing to not only pray for those abusing and hunting them down, but also performing miracles of healing for them when they fell sick.
     I've made no secret of my belief that Trump is Nero reborn, or that he very much resembles an antichrist and is in the process of checking off those boxes. But the Christian response to him is not to attempt to end him, but to do the exact same things our spiritual ancestors did. Do what Jesus taught. Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who hunt you. If you must be arrested and go to your death, rejoice, and do it with a song on your lips because you are in good company and they will be waiting to welcome you home.
     Recently, I've been watching a number of videos on YouTube about German, Nazi, POWs and how they were treated in the POW camps in Canada and the US. They had been told by their government that the Americans and Canadians would torture and kill them. They had been told that the US and Canada were on the verge of collapse with bombed out cities and a starving population, just like in Germany at the time. They came came expecting the worst. Instead, the US just followed the Geneva convention and treated those POWs like their own soldiers. Gave them the same food, clothing, housing, and paid them for their labor. They got a day off on Sundays, and evenings for recreation time. The POWs had been so brainwashed that they honestly thought the Americans were trying to trick them, fatten them up for slaughter. Over months and even years of just being treated with basic human decency and kindness, eventually most began to understand that their government had lied to them. They began to understand that  they weren't going to be killed or even mistreated. Many struck up friendships with the Americans they worked with. After the war, many of those Americans sponsered their immigration back to the US after repatriation where the former POWs became residents and then citizens. These formerly Nazi soldiers weren't "brainwashed" by the camps, they were just treated kindly and with compassion according to the rules set down by the Geneva Convention. They were just shown the truth about America's abundance, natural wonders, culture, and governmental structures. When they returned home to a devastated Germany that had no idea what the truth actually was, they realized they no longer wanted to be there or be a part of it. 
     They had come prepared for torture  and use of force. It would have reinforced everything they were told to think. But they had no defense against compassion and the truth. This is how you truly defeat an enemy. You love them, treat them with kindness and compassion, and show them the truth. It may take time and won't happen overnight, but it can and will happen.
     Trump and MAGA will eventually resolve themselves. They may cause more death and destruction in the process like the Nazis did, but they will eventually resolve themselves one way or the other. They're prepared for an opposition that uses force. They expect it. They even welcome it because it proves them right. They really have no defense against actually practicing what Jesus taught. They have no defense against the truth except to cover it up with more lies. It doesn't fit their narrative.

Lessons From the John Wick Series

      I recently watched all four John Wick movies. I got them mostly for John, Cindy's husband, to watch in his convalescence. He tends to like the hard action films, so these were right up his alley. I'll be honest, the action sequences got a little repetitive after a while, and you already knew John Wick was going to win every time. His plot armor was far more bulletproof than his suits were, and that's saying something. This being said, in a way they're full of subtle nostalgic callbacks to the Matrix, Highlander, Assassin's Creed, Rambo, and a few other action films and franchises and they end up being a kind of comfort food even if you haven't seen them before. The first film is kind of a self-contained story which can stand on its own. The next three are really a six and a half hour sequel movie broken into three parts. 
     There are a few things I can say about John Wick and the storylines which stuck out to me as teachable moments. The first is that John is the one who brings almost all of his suffering on himself after his wife dies. It is true that he was attacked, his car was stolen, and the puppy his wife gave him to help him grieve was murdered in front of him. I'm not saying that was his doing. But it was his response to these things which set everything in motion to completely destroy what he had left of the "normal" life he had built with his wife, Helen. It was his choice to get revenge and rampage through the Russian mafia which put him on back on the radar of the man who held his marker. It was his choice to kill that man on Continental grounds that got him "excommunicado" with the High Table, and all those who helped him after that punished severely. It was his choice to kill the High Table Elder which upped the bounty on him and caused them to destroy the New York Continental, excommunicate Winston, and systematically hunt down anyone who could be helping or harboring him which led to the death of his friend who managed the Continental in Osaka. Ultimately, it was John Wick's choices which led to his own death, and the deaths of many if not most of his friends. None of it would have happened if he had just walked away to begin with, let them have the car, buried his puppy, and moved on. Don't get me wrong, I get why he did what he did, but all actions have consequences not only for ourselves, but all those around us. In the end, he lost everything he was fighting to keep, including his life, leaving a trail of bodies that numbered in the hundreds, not to mention the lives shattered of people whom he had counted as friends and even family.
     The second thing I want to point out here is that his solution, as an assassin, was to kill the people he held responsible for causing his suffering. He broke the High Table's rules, the High Table sent people to enforce the penalty for breaking them. He killed the people they sent. They sent more, always more. He killed High Table leadership. They appointed new leadership. His problem, as Winston pointed out to him, was that he couldn't kill all of them. The High Table organization was composed of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. It was like the Hydra. You kill one head, two more grow back, and they just keep coming. Ultimately, Winston's wisdom was that John had to work within the High Table's rules to truly find a way to end it, and he was right. When John told him that he would kill anyone sent after him, Winston replied, "I know you will." He had no doubts about the matter. What John wasn't counting on that Winston understood is that they would never stop sending people, and John simply couldn't kill them all. They would eventually overwhelm him, and very nearly did several times if not for timely interventions. John's ending was more him trying to make restitution to Winston and Caine and save them as he finally understood that the only way by that point was in fact his death. On his terms, yes, but his death nonetheless. In the end, the rules were satisfied, the High Table was satisfied, and everyone involved was left to pick up the pieces and rebuild what lives they had left.
     A third thing from John Wick is this: He who lives by the sword dies by it. It's not divine retribution, it's just reality. Jesus said this to Peter in the garden at his arrest, but the Buddha also said something like it to a general who came wanting to be taught the Dharma. He told the general, “He who goeth to battle, O Simha, even though it be in a righteous cause, must be prepared to be slain by his enemies, for that is the destiny of warriors; and should his fate overtake him he has no reason for complaint. But he who is victorious should remember the instability of earthly things. His success may be great, but be it ever so great the wheel of fortune may turn again and bring him down into the dust.” (The Gospel of Buddha. Paul Carus)
     All John had to do was walk away and leave Baba Yaga in the past. Leave his equipment in the concrete. It wouldn't have made for a good action movie with a sympathetic anti-hero, but it would have prevented all of the death and destruction which followed.

Autism, ADHD, and Why Jesus Died and Resurrected

 Is someone with autism responsible for their autistic behaviors? Think about the answer hard. His or her behaviors are being informed by the way their neurodivergent brain is wired, and yet the choice to commit to those behaviors still belongs to them. Even with autism, they still have agency. Those behaviors make every sense in the world for them to do at that moment even though they may be completely inappropriate or in some cases violent. Their brains are telling them, "yes, this is the right course of action for you to take," maybe even screaming it at them even if they know intellectually that's not the case. The same is true of people with ADHD. In order to perform "normally" with relatively "normal" behaviors, it can take an extreme amount of effort, and even then they're really just role playing for all intents and purposes. It's exhausting, draining, and the end result is never quite "right".

     Now understand that this is also what's going on with "hamartia," traditionally translated as "sin." The difference here is that "every" human being has this disorder. We don't even recognize it for what it is because we've only ever had one "normal" human being born in the last couple of millennia. The human brain, and specifically the amygdala, is functioning on a set of physical parameters that it wasn't originally supposed to be. It's overreactive in comparison with all other animals. And this is also what happens when you try to apply "normal" social expectations to it, such as with rules or moral "law." It becomes role playing and "masking". It can take an extreme amount of effort to not give in to what your own brain is screaming at you to do. It's exhausting and draining trying to just perform "normally." The choice to commit to those hamartia behaviors still belongs to the person in question, but understand that it is that person's own brain which is influencing them and pushing them to do so.

     As long as it is the brain which is the source of responses and behaviors, this will be the case. This is what the Gospel is really about; changing the source of responses and behaviors and bypassing the dysfunctional hardware of the human brain. Because the truth is that we are not just animal, we are also logos. We are not just flesh, we are also spirit, and originally, the brain was meant to be a transceiver of sorts for that logos or spirit, what is now frequently called "consciousness." 

     The altered parameters of the human amygdala put us constantly under the control of our survival responses, and the fear response in particular so that we treat everything, every memory, every like or dislike, every imagining, every encounter as either a survival threat or a survival necessity. This constant state blocks or obstructs the original, natural control and responses of the spirit or logos. This is why Jesus Christ came, and why He died and resurrected, because what has died has been made right from hamartia.

      Jesus Christ died and resurrected or "resuscitated" because this is literally the only thing which can for certain neutralize our problem. The after-effects of those who have near death experiences, those who have literally died or been brain dead for a short period and then returned to life, are fairly well documented and they are all marked by a sudden increase of love, empathy, and compassion for all other people, sometimes supernatural abilities, and the genuine and mostly permanent loss of being controlled by their fear. So how do you make this available to every human being without them actually having to die?

     This is why the Logos, the Head of every other logos human beings carry and to whom every human being is connected, incarnated as a human being, and why He chose to die and resurrect, because, in so doing, His death and resurrection experience becomes our death and resurrection experience, and the aftereffects upon the human brain become ours as well if we are aware that we are capable of choosing them and do so.

     Jesus Christ died and resurrected to give us a real solution to our human dysfunction, our inherited disorder without destroying our free will to choose. He died and resurrected in order to give us the real choice to behave "normally" as human beings were intended to with the spirit or logos behaving and responding and not a dysfunctional organ within the brain.

     He died and resurrected to restore us and change us to what we were intended to be, incarnations of the Logos just like Him.

The Problem with the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity as It is Taught

 Thoughts lately and today. The main problem with the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is that it tries to set boundaries on that which has no boundaries. It tries to limit the limitless, and make finite the infinite.

    The Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, like its deviations and heresies, was the result of human beings trying to understand how Jesus Christ could also be God in addition to His Father being God, and then also the Holy Spirit being God, and yet there only existing one God. The heresies and deviations denied either that there was only one God, or they denied that Jesus Christ Himself was God. 

     But all of this presumes that there is a demarcation point where God ends and "other" begins. It presumes that it is possible for there to be a place in space and time where God is not. It presumes that God exist within the boundaries of space and time instead of these moving through His infinity. This requires that God not be omnipresent or infinite. It makes sense when looking at God through the eyes of ancient man more familiar with gods made in man's image, but not when taking into account the God described by the Bible. The Being who only describes Himself as "I Am."

     Where the Logos is concerned, this is a concept older than the New Testament and it is certain that John is making use of that concept with which everyone was familiar at the time. Paul too describes the Christ with the same language with which the Stoics describe the Logos. It is clear in Stoic writings that the Logos originates with the God, firstborn of all creation, and through which the creation was made. It is clear that the Logos is made of God, but is distinct from the Father God. What is also clear from these writings is that every human being holds a piece or shred of that Logos. Every human being can be said to be incarnate Logos. Jesus Christ was unique in that He was born without our inherited error and without its influence. He was unique in that He is the Head and we are parts of the body of the Logos. But he was not the only born, but the firstborn among many siblings. 

     And so in the Scriptures we see the Father God, the Logos, and the Spirit and yet only a single infinite God. We see a single incarnate Logos and yet many incarnations of the parts of the Logos. And so we see not just a Trinity, but a Logos that is also unity in diversity among all human beings.

     But we are not just Logos, but incarnate Logos, Logos with flesh, Divine Logos and animal, and the animal part of the human being is malfunctioning. The system of our animal brain which deals with survival threats and necessities is working with physical parameters it was not designed to work with. It is over reactive and colors every action, word, and thought we have. It has us fearful or angry at things which haven’t even happened, or things which have long since passed and no longer threaten us. It has us hoarding things it believes to be necessities which aren’t, and refusing or attempting to destroy things it believes to be threats that may or may not be. Jesus Christ alone was born without this error within His animal flesh. It is this error which keeps us responding as though everything was a threat or necessity and as such keeps us from responding from the logos that we truly are, keeps us from experiencing the natural union of substance with Love Himself.

     It is this error that Jesus Christ taught us to recognize and bypass through His words, His life, His death, and His resurrection because what has died is made right from this malfunction. Detachment from the error, a weakening of the error’s hold over us is a natural outcome of death and resuscitation, and by including all of us in His death and resurrection or resuscitation, He made His experience our reality, and gave us the tools to submit to and cooperate with the part of the Divine Logos which we all hold if we choose it. He gave us the tools to experience our oneness with the substance of God as body-parts of this second person of the “Trinity,” the Logos, which is our birthright as much as it is His, as He is the firstborn among many siblings.

     And so the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is incomplete as it is because it does not include the entirety of the incarnate Logos, that is, the rest of humanity each of which contains a shred, piece, or part and is a part or member, fully in communication or not, of the body of the Logos who is Jesus Christ.

What is the Bible Actually Talking About When It Appears to Forbid Homosexuality?

      What was the actual intention of the prohibitions in Leviticus and Deuteronomy against "males lying with males?" This is an interesting question. Virtually all interpretations that forbid it for its own sake were written well over a thousand years after the original texts were. The earliest interpretations in the Jewish Talmud that forbid it for its own sake or because it "wastes seed" meant to be used in procreation were written after the third century CE (and over two centuries after Paul wrote his letters). The Torah was written between 1000 and 1500 BCE.

     What's really interesting is that there is no prohibition against lesbianism in the Torah itself. That prohibition came from the Talmud, and even in the Talmud it was seen as potentially obscene but not worthy of the death penalty like "males lying with males," and specifically because there was no "wasted seed" involved.

     The thing about the "wasted seed" and procreation argument is that this is never brought up in the Torah itself. At best, there is a reference to men having emissions of semen at night being ritually unclean until the following evening, but that's about it. Notably, there is no explicit, or even implicit, prohibition against masturbation. 

     There is the argument from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the men of Sodom trying to break down Lot's door so they could "know" the angels who had taken refuge in his home. But the prophets, Ezekiel in particular, are explicit that the sin of Sodom was pride, refusal to help the poor and needy, arrogance, and "abominations" (16:49-50). An interesting thing about the word for abominations in Hebrew (to'evah) is that it covers a lot of things in Jewish tradition. The chief things among them though are violations with regards to idolatry, worshiping false gods in the temple, and making sacrifices outside of those proscribed in the Torah.

     Now one thing that does fit into this which does explain the prohibitions against "males lying with males" is Deuteronomy 23:18 which is an explicit prohibition against temple prostitutes among the Israelite women and an explicit prohibition against temple prostitutes among the Israelite men. This was a fairly common practice in the ancient pagan world spanning from Egypt all the way up to ancient Greece and later in the Roman empire of the first century. The priests of Cybele in Rome itself emasculated themselves, lived as women, and acted as temple prostitutes.

     All of the commandments in the Torah were driven by two primary commandments, if you will. The first was “you will worship Yahweh your God and you will serve only Him,” and the same sentiment is repeated as well with “You will love Yahweh your God with all of your heart, with all of your soul, and with all of your strength.” The second was “You will love the person next to you like yourself.” Every other command in the Torah was essentially exposition and commentary on these two principles. Every violation of the first primary command was punished with death.

     The Torah is explicit that the worship of false gods incurs the death penalty among the Israelites. This is repeated over and over and over again. Anything associated with pagan worship was forbidden and punishable by death in the Torah. It didn't matter what it was. It’s the reason why tattooing one’s skin was forbidden. It’s the reason why astrology and being a medium was forbidden. It wasn't the thing in and of itself that was the problem, it was that it was involved in worshiping gods which didn't exist and often demanded horrendous atrocities such as sacrificing one's own child to Molech by burning it to death in an idol's arms. 

     So, it can safely be said, based on all of this, that it isn't the act of homosexuality, either male or female, that was the problem. It was doing it as an act of worship of a pagan god that was the problem trying to be stamped out by the Torah. It had nothing to do with non-procreative sexual acts, but everything to do with participating in pagan worship which was explicitly forbidden on pain of death. The rationale of forbidding it based on non-procreative sexual acts came over a millennium later. It was an abomination within the cultural context of the time which was pagan worship, that is, a cultural context which realistically no longer exists.

     This is what the Torah and the Hebrew Bible say on the subject, and the cultural contexts in which it was placed. The Gospels do not mention it at all. Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus does He mention any kind of homosexuality in any context. Paul writes in his letters in the New Testament repeatedly and with detailed explanations, those who are “in Christ” are not subject to the Torah at all. This sentiment was also clearly expressed in the book of Acts by the Elders and Apostles of Jerusalem at what is commonly referred to as the Council of Jerusalem. They made it clear that the non-Jewish Christians and followers of the Way were not bound by any part of the Torah. They made the request that they abstain from eating blood, eating things which had been strangled and “porneia” in order to keep peace with their Jewish brothers and sisters. Other than that, the non-Jewish brothers and sisters weren’t expected to keep any part of it.

     Now, “porneia” literally means “prostitution” in Greek, though a better translation might be “whoring” in that it can refer to either paid or unpaid sexual services outside of marriage or concubinage. What it also encompasses, and may be a direct reference to with regards to those non-Jewish brothers and sisters, is temple prostitution of both the male and female variety, that is, the same kind of temple prostitution forbidden by the Torah.

     The next passage in the New Testament which does speak specifically about “males lying with males” is in the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans, where he says (traditionally translated), “For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.” (1:26-17, WEB)

     Now, we know that there was no prohibition against lesbianism in the Torah. There wouldn’t be any prohibition against it in Judaism for at least another two hundred years. So what is Paul actually referencing here? The first passage in the Torah which forbids “males lying with males” is Leviticus 18:22, but the sentence immediately following this prohibition in verse 23 is “You shall not lie with any animal to defile yourself with it; neither shall any woman give herself to an animal, to lie down with it: it is a perversion [to’evah].” There were cults in the ancient world in which bestiality was practiced as a form of worship. One in particular was centered in Egypt (though the cult was found in many places) with the worship of Serapis where one of the priestesses would “marry” a ritual bull and copulate with it. There is another passage in the Torah as well demanding that not only the woman be put to death, but also the animal which was used in the sex act. In the context of the first chapter of Romans which began with Paul relating human beings’ descent from worshiping the Creator to images of created things, it’s not that much of a stretch to say that Paul had pagan temple prostitution and ritual bestiality in mind when he wrote these words.

     The next passage which is interpreted to bring up homosexuality is in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 which is frequently translated to state that neither homosexuals nor sodomizers will inherit the kingdom of God. There are two problems with the translations of the two words as “homosexuals” and “sodomizers” in a generalized sense.

     The first is that the first word does not actually mean “homosexual.” It is the Greek word “malakos” which in both first century Greek and modern Greek means “soft” in a wide variety of contexts. One’s clothing might be “malakos” for example. One’s bedding might be “malakos.” One might speak “malakos” words, that is, “gentle” words. But one might also be morally “malakos,” that is, morally soft or weak. One might be “malakos” in that he is cowardly. It might be used as an insult towards a man giving it the meaning of “effeminate,” but it never specifically refers to someone being a homosexual of any kind. This English translation was never even used for it until the twentieth century or so, and without real justification linguistically.

     The second problem is that while the second word, “arsenokoites,” does mean a man who penetrates males, there was a specific Greco-Roman cultural practice it is likely that Paul was referring to. This is the practice of pederasty which is where older men would penetrate younger boys. It is a well documented practice which from Paul’s time dates back at least centuries and was even encouraged by the Greek philosopher Plato in his work “The Republic.” When Martin Luther translated his Bible into German, he used the German word for “pedophiles” in order to translate this word from the Greek, clearly understanding this to be Paul’s meaning. In a slightly later Christian catechism from about 70 CE (less than 15 years after 1 Corinthians was written), the author is more explicit about "corrupters of boys" (2:2) and doesn't mention "arsenokoites" at all.

     The reason why Paul wasn't more explicit in his language that he was largely talking about temple prostitutes and pederasty was that he didn't have to be. Those to whom he was writing already knew what he was talking about because they were from the same culture and society that he was. They already knew what he meant by "malakos" as well as "arsenokoites." It is only modern readers who were not immersed in that culture and society that impose their own anachronistic interpretations onto it.

     Given that both words are masculine gender thus excluding women from them altogether, and the actual meanings of the words in question and the cultural contexts in which they were used, it’s actually a deliberate mistranslation to render these words to mean homosexuals in general. It is telling that another word in the list in which these appear is also frequently mistranslated. The word “pornos” is usually translated as “fornicator,” a word which is quite frankly archaic at best in 21st century English. What it actually means is “male prostitute,” probably hearkening back to the temple prostitutes, though “male whore” is also a valid translation. It is however a masculine gender noun specifically, and does not refer to female prostitutes, which would be “porne,” unless it is referring to prostitutes in general.

     In conclusion, in spite of the way the Bible is traditionally translated and interpreted, when it speaks of or forbids homosexual acts, it has cultural contexts and practices in mind which were specific to the time period and place in which these texts were penned, most of which no longer exist. It never addresses lesbianism as a rule, and when it addresses male homosexuality it does so in the context of pagan worship and temple prostitution (or in the case of Lot’s guests in Sodom and pederasty, rape). The text of the Bible literally has no opinion on stable, committed, consensual homosexual relationships because these were not a part of the culture of the period.

A Message to American Evangelicals

 Reality will always assert itself eventually. Truth will always show itself to be truth. Apple trees will always produce apples and not oranges. Poke weed will never produce blueberries. Thorn bushes will never produce figs. Water hemlock may look like wild carrot, but you'll only eat it once.

     For decades Southern Baptist influenced American Christian Evangelical Protestantism promoted itself as the only "real Christianity" through television, mega churches, recording brands, publishing houses, media, and political influence. It took off even more and enculturated even more with prosperity gospel teachings and preaching. Every other Christian denomination and practice was condemned as heretical, especially the Sacramental denominations. Now look at it. one third of its membership gone over the last twenty years. Thousands of churches closed. Pastors resigned in shame. Wracked with scandal after scandal it's collapsing under its own weight because it did not stay connected to the Head. It did not follow the Way Jesus Christ taught but the practices of greedy and predatory con men. It did not worship the only true God, but a picture of him formed from its own imagination. And now, blinded by the darkness and wandering it follows not the voice of its Shepherd, but the voice of a Beast calling it to dine. Reality will always assert itself.

      The Shepherd cries out, "Open your eyes! Look where you're going!" Return to what Jesus Christ taught. Live as He taught, walk as He walked. Turn around. Love one another, love the person next to you, love your enemies, because love is of God and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The person who doesn't love doesn't know God, because God is love. The person who says he is in the light but walks in darkness is a liar and the truth is not within him, but if you agree with Him about your error He is trusted and right and will drop all of these errors and will make you clean from them. Have mercy on the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner. Care for the poor and destitute. Defend those who cannot defend themselves. Operate by the Spirit and do not be enslaved by your own flesh's fear, anger, or cravings.

     Remember the terms of discipleship. If you love anything more than Jesus Christ, you cannot be His disciple. If possessions, relationships, or even your own self-identity are more important to you than Jesus Christ, remove them or you cannot be His disciple. And if you cannot do this, then do not speak evil of Him by calling yourself by His name.

     Do not judge those on the outside. Don't judge and you won't be judged. Forgive one another. Give expecting nothing in return. Publicly rebuke leadership that is in error as Jesus did with Peter. As Paul did with him too. Pick up your cross and come behind Him.

     Hear His voice. He's begging you. Hear His voice before you are devoured.

Being a Disciple Starts with Loving the Person Next to You at That Moment

     Being a disciple of Jesus Christ starts with caring about the person immediately within your orbit. Not having an attachment to that person, but choosing to care about them. And so in Ephesians, one's immediate relationships are addressed by Paul. Your spouse, your children, the people you work for, the people who work for you. The person with whom you interact every day, the person who just sits next to you on the bus, the person you stand next to in the grocery store. 

     Being Jesus for the person next to you, loving the person next to you like yourself, doesn't start with grand gestures, it doesn't start with missionary service, and it doesn't even start with volunteering at food banks, homeless shelters, or entering pastoral ministry. It starts in the quiet, one to one, intimate and semi-intimate interactions with the people right next to you. If you cannot be Jesus for your spouse, how are you going to be Jesus for the stranger? If you cannot love your children as yourself, how are you going to love the homeless man, the immigrant, or the person who hates you? 

     Discipleship begins and is practiced in these single, one to one interactions whether you have a longstanding relationship or interaction with that person, or you see them once and never again. It's the person next to you, the person who asks for help, the person who you know and the person that you don't. How can I best love this person I'm talking to right now, standing next to right now, chatting with over social media right now, arguing with right now? 

      In the first century near east, the people far away were just that, far away. You didn't see them on T.V. screens. Celebrities didn't just appear on computer monitors or smartphones. The average person had never seen the emperor in real life, and would never see photos or video of him. When Jesus says to love the person next to you as yourself, He literally means whoever is next to you at the moment, whoever you're interacting with at the moment. Care about that person in that moment when they enter your orbit. While it can be a very active thing to go out and do this with people you do not know, it must start as a discipline, a practice with the people already there with you, no matter who they are, and then extend to each new person whom you encounter. Don't worry about those you see on the screens that you have not personally interacted with yet. They might as well be imaginary for all intents and purposes (not that they don't exist, but that you have no interaction with them yet and thus cannot do them any good at the moment). Practice with the people you meet as you go, especially those within your immediate orbit, regardless of their response.

Why I Translate the Books of the New Testament from Scratch Again and Again and Again

 I've translated through every book of the New Testament at least twice. Most of them I've done at least four or five times. Some, like Romans, I've lost count of how many times I've translated through it completely fresh. 

     Why do I do this? 

     Because every time I put it away and start again fresh I see something I didn't see before. Every time I go back and check the lexical definitions of words I know I've checked a hundred times before, I'm looking to understand what exactly the semantic meaning really is here. My autistic brain wants to just plug in one of the lexical definitions that's already there, but it also knows that most of those lexical definitions are using English that's at least a hundred years old to describe idioms from a language and culture that's 2,000 years old. And so, I get hung up on a word or a sentence. 

     What is Paul actually saying? (Paul's letters are where this usually happens the most.) 

     I put it away. Read more about the history, language, culture, and philosophy of the first century Roman Near East. I read modern translations of other works from the same language and period, and then go back again and look at it again with those eyes. 

     I put it away again and focus on Modern Greek to see if it has anything to teach me about how certain word usage and constructions might have survived, and then I again go back and run through it again, looking at it with the eyes which that has given me. 

     And every time I do this, I strip away just a little bit more of the two thousand years of language, culture, and theological changes which have been imposed on the text and I come closer to being in the room with the author as he's writing. I come closer to having that conversation with him on his terms, not my 21st century, English speaking American terms. And I come closer to understanding what he was saying to those readers who already knew what he was talking about, because he was only reminding them of things he's already said to them while he was there. 

     I must come to this author without a Protestant theological background, without a Catholic or Orthodox background, without the background of someone from my century, and I must listen to him as he writes as though I was someone from his own time and place, someone who understands the people, the places, the idioms, the humor, the sarcasm. I go, and I come back as though I'm travelling through time; learning more each time I do until I get it. 

      I must approach it without bias, without judgment, without a preconceived opinion and just let Paul, or Matthew, or John speak as they are, no more and no less, and not put words in their mouths they didn't mean or say. In doing all this over the more than three decades since I started learning Biblical Greek, I peel back the noise generated by twenty centuries of change, both unintended and deliberate, layer by layer. 

     This is why I don't just do one translation and then go back and edit and revise it. I always go back and work from the Greek fresh. Every time. I go back and look up words I already know the meaning of just so I can find a new way to say it in English to see if that is more appropriate for a modern usage. I play with it a bit. Should this be word for word and grammar for grammar, or should it be rendered idiomatically or paraphrased? My ASD brain spends a half hour on a single sentence sometimes obsessively trying to make it make sense with the actual word meanings and grammar rather than giving it the standard theologically biased translation. And sometimes I go back and find that I was wrong, and I look at it again and wonder how I could have rendered it that way before. Sometimes it makes perfect sense at the time but looks like gibberish in English when I go back and look at it again. 

     But I go back. I sit in that room with the author as he's writing, and I do the hard work of trying to understand what he's actually saying without the noise. And sometimes, just sometimes, I get it. He speaks clearly as though it's my own native tongue. And that makes all of the above worth every single time.

No One Can Be a Slave of Two Owners

 Way back in 2014, my family and I moved back to Southern California from Arkansas. Among our hardships at the time was that we didn't have a car. We had ridden the bus back to California and could only bring what we could carry in our luggage. It was a rough time for a number of reasons, and in Southern California, not having a car put a serious hamper on our mobility. But one of the things I found myself feeling at the time was a kind of relief in a way. No car meant no insurance payment. It meant no needing to fill up the tank with expensive gasoline. It meant no car repairs. No yearly car registration either. We were using bus passes at the time, and the monthly pass was so much cheaper than actually owning a car. I was actually happy for a time about not having a car, and was somewhat stressed about being given one about four or five months later by the church we became members of.

     In 2016 or '17, I became the proud owner of a World of Warcraft account. I was paying $15 a month, give or take, for access to Azeroth. Honestly, paying to rent or "own" the thing felt like it obligated me to play it every day, otherwise I was wasting my money. 

     Owning anything means being responsible for that thing. Ownership's neither good nor bad, and it is a regular part of our society's collective psyche, but it does come with responsibilities if you want to continue to own that thing. Ownership of a thing, in a way, makes you the property or slave of the thing you own. Owning a thing obligates you to use it, or else why own it? Owning a thing obligates you to take care of it whether you want to or not. When you own a thing it takes and holds part of you for ransom until you let that thing go. Owning a thing, in a way, makes it your master because you, out of principle, develop an attachment to it just by virtue of your ownership.

     Jesus taught that, "No one can be a slave of two owners. He will either hate the one and love the other, or he will love the one and despise the other." It is my thought this morning that this one of the reasons why the conditions of discipleship demanded a letting go of "the things you started off with", that is, your possessions, as much as they demanded letting go of any relationships where you were more attached to the other person than to Jesus Himself, and of course letting go of your own "psyche," your own self-identity, your "breath." You cannot serve two masters.

     If you are so attached to something that you cannot just let it go, then it is your master, it is your owner whether you want it to be or not. As I said, in this day and age, ownership of property is nearly unavoidable, but be aware of it, and what you possess that has ownership over you. These are the things which prevent you from really being His disciple. Not because He has strict rules, but because you have lent yourself over to serve other owners, and no one can be a slave of more than one owner or master.

Sometimes the Darkest Moments Can Produce The Brightest Lights

 I am going to say something here where my intention can be easily misunderstood. I hope it isn't. 

     Without the people and their descendants that slavery brought to America, history would have looked very different. There would have been no George Washington Carver to teach us about peanuts and their beneficial uses. There would have been no Frederick Douglas. There would have been no Martin Luther King Junior. No Nichelle Nichols from Star Trek. There would have been no Nat King Cole. The lady of color who was the human calculator behind the NASA efforts to get to the moon wouldn't have been there. The revolutionary army might all have died of small pox if not for the wisdom of an African slave who showed Cotton Mather how to inoculate against it half a century earlier in Boston. Or the Civil War might not have been won at all if not for the efforts of a freed slave posing as a housemaid in Jefferson Davis' house and gathering information for the Union.

     For all the horrors and atrocities that slavery brought, and it brought many, too many, it was also the soil which produced great minds, great people, people who inspired and taught us in so many ways. People without whom the United States could not have survived. I was contemplating at what point in history slavery could have best been stopped. Ideally, it would have been by waylaying the first Dutch slave traders so that it never took root to begin with. But then I remembered all of these great people and many more who contributed so much to who we all are as a nation. I remembered Les Mitchell who was a youth leader at the church I grew up in, and who was there for me at moments in my childhood when no one else was. Without slavery, he wouldn't have been there either.

      It is a general principle that more often than not, some of our greatest moments of growth, some of the most powerful lessons we learn, some of the moments which define who we are come from tragedy, from horrors, from things that happened which should never have happened. It is a truth that, without the Holocaust, it's likely that the State of Israel wouldn't exist today. Without the horrors of the Civil War, slavery itself wouldn't have been abolished in the United States. Without the Atomic Bomb dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan would probably never have surrendered in WWII. How many people have experienced radical positive life changes from literally dying for a short time?

      There is a story from the Zen tradition:

-

There once was an old Zen farmer. Every day, the farmer used his horse to help work his fields and keep his farm healthy.

But one day, the horse ran away. All the villagers came by and said, “We're so sorry to hear this. This is such bad luck.”

But the farmer responded, “Bad luck. Good luck. Who knows?”

The villagers were confused, but decided to ignore him. A few weeks went by and then one afternoon, while the farmer was working outside, he looked up and saw his horse running toward him. But the horse was not alone. The horse was returning to him with a whole herd of horses. So now the farmer had 10 horses to help work his fields.

All the villagers came by to congratulate the farmer and said, “Wow! This is such good luck!”

But the farmer responded, “Good luck. Bad luck. Who knows?

A few weeks later, the farmer's son came over to visit and help his father work on the farm. While trying to tame one of the horses, the farmer’s son fell and broke his leg.

The villagers came by to commiserate and said, “How awful. This is such bad luck.”

Just as he did the first time, the farmer responded, “Bad luck. Good luck. Who knows?”

A month later, the farmer’s son was still recovering. He wasn’t able to walk or do any manual labor to help his father around the farm.

A regiment of the army came marching through town conscripting every able-bodied young man to join them. When the regiment came to the farmer’s house and saw the young boy's broken leg, they marched past and left him where he lay.

Of course, all the villagers came by and said, “Amazing! This is such good luck. You're so fortunate.”

And you know the farmer’s response by now…

"Bad luck. Good luck. Who knows?"

-

No one wants tragedies or hurtful things to happen to them. No one wants atrocities to occur to anyone. The Holocaust was an atrocity. Slavery was an atrocity. But without the filth and dirt of those atrocities, we would not have had such beautiful things take root and grow as a result.

Women Teaching and Pastoring and Why Paul Wrote What He Did About It

 Something I haven't much touched on about is the role of women among a community of disciples. The truth is, I've kind of ignored it, but that probably isn't the best way to approach it or anything for that matter. Though, in a way, it's kind of resolving itself.

     I was initially taught that women shouldn't be teaching or holding authority over men within a church or denomination, and if they did so it was unbiblical and a violation of Scripture. This is, very much, the traditional view, and is the reason why so many churches and denominations still refuse to ordain women as pastors or priests.

     This view is based primarily on two passages in the New Testament. Both are found in letters written by Paul. The first is 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36. The second is 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Jesus Himself never said anything about excluding women from teaching positions or positions of authority, although all twelve of His Apostles were men specifically. Because the two passages against it are found in Paul's writings, He is often seen as a misogynist and he and his writings maligned by those who support women's ordination. The truth is, Paul was anything but a misogynist.

     Paul's worldview regarding any member of a community of disciples can be summed up in his letter to the Galatians, chapter 3 verse 28, which reads, "There is not one Judean neither Greek, not one slave neither free person, not one male and female; because you are all one person within the Anointed Yeshua." In Paul's mind, all were the same in the body of Christ. All held the same Spirit, the same Logos and were members of the same Logos. Jesus Himself shares a similar sentiment when He says in Luke that, "in the resurrection they will neither be married nor given in marriage." That is, there will be neither male nor female.

      This is part of a deeper truth. God is neither male nor female, and His Logos of which we all share a part is also neither male nor female. Male and female are attributes of the flesh. The Logos is eternal, ageless, and outside of time. The attributes of the flesh are impermanent and will pass away. Paul and Jesus both were concerned with the disciples living in the eternal, not the impermanent.

     So, what are we to make of Paul's statements then regarding women and teaching or leadership roles? First, Paul didn't write the passage in 1 Corinthians. It was inserted later. How can I possibly say this? When you read Paul's writings in the original language over and over again, you get used to the way he speaks. You get his rhythms and vocabulary and even patterns of thought. The passage in 1 Corinthians doesn't read anything like Paul's speech. It sticks out like a sore thumb among his words. In some manuscripts, it's not even in this position, but appended to the end of a different chapter. Furthermore, it breaks the natural flow of thought and context of the chapter. Someone inserted it after the letter was written for their own agenda.

     Second, Paul did write the passage in 2 Timothy. This is his wording and flow of thought. But what he means and how it's too often translated are two different things. You also have to understand the cultural context of the period. Women had few rights. They had more rights in Roman society than they did in Judean society, but even then they were still relegated to second class citizens and legally had to be under the authority of a man, either their father or their husband if they wanted any legal standing. This isn't too dissimilar to a woman's legal standing in the United States prior to the twentieth century and the early parts of it, or in the United Kingdom. It was only in the latter part of the twentieth century that they could even open their own bank accounts or purchase their own land. They had no legal standing in a court either without a man's authority. And so this is the cultural and legal reality Paul is trying to advise Timothy in.

      But what did he mean in the actual verses? "Let a woman learn with all stillness with all submission; and I don't allow a woman to teach neither to dominate [also "murder"] a man, but to be with stillness." First, the word usually translated as "silence", and here I have rendered "stillness", actually means to be still, at rest, quiet. It's the word used by the Eastern Orthodox Church to describe their mystics and meditation techniques, "hesychia". One who is in a state of meditation is "with stillness".  Furthermore, "with all submission." To whom or what is one submitted when they are meditating? The Spirit of Christ.  The second word of note in the Greek is "authenteo," usually translated as merely to "hold authority over," but this is a softening of the word's meaning. It literally means "to dominate, have total power over," and also "to murder." The force of this word is to have another's life in their hands. Consider the culture. It is the same with his instructions on hair and veiling. Paul wasn't trying to limit these sisters because he was misogynistic. He was trying to protect them from a society that would destroy them if they became "too free" in that society's eyes. Women who weren't veiled were either slaves or whores. Women who were too outspoken were put in their place. Women who attempted to dominate men often found themselves dead. Paul was trying to prevent that. He was protecting them from the realities of the world they lived in, and they knew it.

     Twenty first century America is a different world and society entirely from the first century Roman Empire. We've gone through a lot of painful but necessary evolution where the place of women in society is concerned, and their rights. There is no reason whatsoever, culturally speaking, that women cannot be in positions of authority or teaching positions in our society. The truth is, women frequently bring a compassion and wisdom in their leadership and teaching that male leaders and teachers don't. They bring a more whole, more well rounded picture of God's love and personality, as they were intended to.

     I could also bring up the number of women writers, deaconesses, and teachers in the ancient church and the church throughout the centuries, and even heroines in the Old Testament, all of whom have contributed significantly and beautifully to its spiritual life. All of whom were clearly moved by the Spirit to do these things.

     To sum this up, yes, women can and should be allowed to teach and hold ordained positions. No, Paul wasn't a misogynist. He was trying to protect his sisters from those who were.