People just ain’t no good

"I think about all of this and keep going back to the "made in the image of God" and wonder why it is that we are capable to committing such evil acts?"

Well, good question. People are able to do such amazingly evil things precisely because we are made in the image of God.

Here's a less than cheerful little theme song you may have heard on the Shrek II soundtrack. Notice how the power of love is pivotal to the death/despair which defines this lovely lament:

People just ain't no good
A thing that's well understood
You can see it everywhere you look
People just ain't no good

We were married under cherry trees
Under blossom we made our vows
All the blossoms come sailing down
Through the streets and through the playgrounds

The sun would stream on the sheets
Awoken by the morning bird
We'd buy the Sunday newspapers
Never read a single word

People, they ain't no good
People, they ain't no good
People, they ain't no good

Seasons came, seasons went
The winter stripped the blossoms bare
A different tree now lines the streets
Shaking its fists in the air

The winter slammed us like a fist
The windows rattling in the gales
To which she drew the curtains
Made out of her wedding veils

People, they ain't no good
People, they ain't no good
People, they ain't no good at all

To our love, send a dozen white lilies
To our love, send a coffin of wood
To our love, let all the pink-eyed pigeons coo
That people, they just ain't no good

To our love, send back all the letters
To our love, a valentine of blood
To our love, let all the jilted lovers cry
That people, they just ain't no good

It ain't that in their hearts they're bad
They can comfort you, some even try
They nurse you when you're ill of health
They bury you when you go and die

It ain't that in their hearts they're bad
They'd stick by you if they could…
But that's just bull****
People just ain't no good

People, they ain't no good
People, they ain't no good
People, they ain't no good

People, they ain't no good at all

Lovingly written and performed by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds

People are able to do such amazingly evil things precisely because we are made in the image of God. How is that?

God is SPIRIT. Now, we normally focus on the word spirit as being immaterial. Both the Hebrew and the Greek for spirit refer to wind, to breath. It is true that the spirit is normally that invisible aspect. When you go to a funeral where the body is shown it is really obvious. That is him, but… he's not here. How is he both here and not here? Body? Yes. Spirit? No. But even if the cadaver were hooked up to electrodes and able to move, it would not be the same. Spirit is not just the invisible breath which gives us life and makes us move, spirit is the aspect of life which chooses. Spirit is will.

To be made in the image of God is to be made capable of acting from one's will. Every time someone offends or blesses us, curses or delights us, it is because their will has acted. God made us in his image, and he empowered us to use the will he had given in ways that are good. What he did not do is give us his character. Rather, he gave us instruction to trust him, his character communicated in commands and advice. He gave warnings. The use of the will, given by God, without the character of goodness that is inherent in God, will result in death. People didn't listen. People don't listen.

When you sell someone a cup of coffee, it is because they have ordered it. They have used their will to choose. What kills you is all the unnecessary choices so devoid of the character of God which accompany that basic choice. They may choose to demand instead of request, exalting their will over and against yours. Your will then has a choice. The temptation is to ignore God's wisdom to love them. Why? To love the rude one must pan back far enough to see a much wider scope of reality. But when confrontation happens our vision tunnels. We see the threat coming and we marshal our own defenses. Some curl up, but most realize they will get pummeled if they don't strike back. Feelings of offense quickly boil our emotions into pure contempt. If we mix our feelings, we hesitate. The defensive urge, to eliminate that which is attacking us by attacking them decisively, burns away any impeding uncertainty. We do not just 'dislike' their attitude. Startlingly, we resent their existence and are barely restrained from acting on that. Then again, like mentioned in the original letter which triggered this post, not everyone resists acting on the contempt for the existence of other spirits (wills; persons) which defy the uniqueness of our own. People lunge at others with words and worse. People can be, well, no good.

God's image (the ability to exercise the will) without God's character (wise goodness in line with actual reality) is evil (decisively rebellious and dangerous).

People, they ain't no good. But they sure are great; so be careful.

Does God feel?

I was at a cozy evening service in London and the pastor spoke about the feelings of God. He noted that many classical theologians have balked at the idea. Their fear being that God should not be able to be affected by people. The problem, like so often happens in Christian theology, is the text. Lofty philosophies, intended to provide an aesthetically simple truth, get pummeled with uncooperative passages expressing too much pathos.

To make his point, the pastor sampled from various accounts, but then turned to the book of Hosea. Hosea is a proper love story; complicated and shamefully filled with unwarranted betrayal and unexpected responses. God's prophet brashly voices God's… feelings.

Having already expanded on the metaphor of a jilted lover, Hosea 11 turns to have God speaking of Israel as his child, saying:

I loved him, I called him, I watched him defy me and go to others. I taught him how to walk, I picked him up when he fell down, I cared for his hurts, I gave loving direction, I took up slack for them, I humbled myself to feed him. But they have abandoned me and refused to come back to me. I should just let Israel go. He'll see.

But God chooses not to react to humanity like one caught in typical Karmic causality. Though God is immanent enough to meaningfully experience the cause and effect of interpersonal choices, God is transcendent enough to respond based on his character, and he does that over and against his feelings.

God asks: How can I hand you over? My heart recoils within me; my compassion grows warm and tender. I will not carry out my seething pathos, I will not respond destructively to the betrayal; for I am God and not man. I have justification for wrath, but I choose freely to withhold it.

Hosea's metaphors shift and change like a poet's. Truth is woven in beauty to launch the willing reader into awareness of something that is related to, but not, the metaphors used. God is with us in our passions, but above us in the richness of his self-existence. God feels in response to us but acts in response to himself.

Can we feel but respond to others in response to God's self-existence? Can we be passionately present without being slaves to karmic reactions?

Matthew 5:43-48 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' (44) But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, (45) so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (46) For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? (47) And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? (48) You therefore must be telos, as your heavenly Father is telos.

Reading ‘the truth behind” stuff

I started an advanced Spanish class last night. An Italian chap arrived early for class and the two of us had quite an adventurous conversation about wild travels, illicit drugs and such (followed by him asking what I do for a living…). He then asked if I had seen Zeitgeist, an internet film. I said I had heard of it, but had not seen it. He excitedly tried to explain to me that it explains everything about how nothing is as it seems; except maybe the stuff Zeitgeist promotes. Hmm. What's the real story behind the real story, that's what I want to know.

I am reading different things that explain a different story behind the gospels than what they say about themselves. The most fascinating by far has been The Jesus Dynasty by James D. Tabor. He is an archeologist who has long tried to find the historical Jesus. He ends up with Mary having gotten pregnant from a Roman soldier (maybe by rape, maybe not). The Roman is buried in Germany and he includes a photo of a grave stone.

He also says that John the Baptizer was the priestly messiah and Jesus the kingly messiah until John was killed and the plan was changed. After Jesus died and the Kingdom did not manifest, there was some confusion, but everyone rallied behind James with the same basic political message and no resurrection talk. The argument is that Paul intruded with a different gospel that was more aimed at the Greek community. Eventually Paul's version won out (mostly) and the real story has largely been lost.

Back to my Italian conspiracy friend. EVERYTHING is explained by the Templars being killed by the Pope on Friday the 13^th October 1307. The truth about the Sun God oppressors (now manifest by George W. Bush) was almost lost.

But both tell me that reconstruction is possible! I'm still trying to learn it all, but not doing so well keeping the stories straight. What I do remember is that I once was enthralled with the 88 Reasons for the Rapture in 88 reconstruction of the real story of prophecy. Oops.

The easiest thing to do would be to mock the unfamiliar, but that isn't a very good strategy when my story of reality is strikingly unfamiliar and odd to others. There was God, he made things good, choice led to evil, a promise was made, God became man, he lived, died, rose again, left and will return. How easily dismissed would that be to someone who is not already loyal to it?

My challenge, which I have chosen to accept for my own reasons, is partly to explore the issues of epistemology (how we know what we know). I would like to be consistent, because it matters to me. Familiarity with a view, even camaraderie, is not enough. I actually want to submit to what is right and to do so for the right reasons. I want to be reasonably consistent with my approach to others' ideas relative to how I want them to consider my ideas. I want to guard against the cultic way of self-reinforcing delusion AND against the self-excusing way of convenient skepticism. I want the brave path of risking error by listening and speaking, being open minded and able to make decisions because of having opened and engaged my mind.

"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear. The brave may not live forever, but the cautious do not live at all." - The Princess Diaries