Windblown

I have never been comfortable with this statement, or profession of “faith”, because it is professing faith in the wrong thing – a book. Not only is it blind faith and circular thinking, it misplaces faith in a book and not God (and I don’t care if it’s the Torah, the Bible, or the Qur’an). It is the first step towards idolatry - biblio-idolatry to be specific.

The fact of the matter is, there are conflicts, inconsistencies, and incompatibilities between the Old Testament and the New Testament (if there wasn’t we’d have never heard of Gnosticism), most especially when Christians narrowly focus only on the bible’s words as ultimate and absolute authority.*

Admittedly there are conflicts and incompatibilities between the Bible and the Qur’an as well*, but, once again, only when viewed (by both sides) through the paradigm of a book as being the source of authority and not God.

The real issue isn’t whether the Torah of the Old Testament and the New Testament are not compatible, nor whether the bible and the Qur’an are in conflict and suffer incompatibility. We are misled and misdirected when we focus on and come into conflict over these issues. We fall victim to pride and seek to answer the question of whose right rather than listening to the voice of the Spirit.

When we decide to follow the Way of Yeshua (or the Holy Spirit for that matter) we must decide whether

A) we will narrowly focus only on a book’s words as our pinnacle of authority, or

B) allow the principles of the Spirit beneath the words to be our guiding force.

It is these two possibilities that are in conflict. It is these two options that are totally incompatible. There is no happy medium between these two points.

You deliberately follow the letter of the law, or you deliberately follow the spirit of the law. You may only do both incidentally. One will shackle and bind you while the other will set you free – whether Jew, Christian, Muslim, freeman, master, or slave.

And it is important to make note that Yeshua was very specific about disregarding the will and direction of the Holy Spirit.



* I suspect these incompatibilities stem from different and varying authors, historic contexts, and cultures btw.

Jet Li's views on religion

"Is there a religion that is superior morally and spiritually with respect to all others? I strongly believe the answer is no. Sure, religions differ from one another in their outward trappings, in the Gods their followers worship, in the customs and rituals which their practitioners observe. But upon closer inspection, the underlying heart and central principle in every religion is the same. Every religion boils down to love, to a respect for all living things, to choosing peace over violence as a means of resolving a conflict. The essence is universal; it is only the means to the end that varies.

"If intrinsically all religions preach the same thing, then why all the different world religions and their numerous offshoots? The explanation, I believe, lies in the fact that people across the world live under very different circumstances. Depending on the cultural, historical, and geographical background of the individual, some religions are easier to understand and practice than others. An individual may opt to follow a certain religion because it falls in place with the way he or she interacts with society at large. Perhaps the religion helps foster and protect the pre-established living patterns along which the individual is used to following. Or maybe the religion helps the individual confront a longstanding fear or personal weakness.

"I like to explain the technical side of the proliferation of such a wide variety of religions through the concept of Bagua, a Chinese form of mathematics. As I've already pointed out, the common denominator of all religions is the concept of love and forgiveness. A tree trunk grows branches; in the same way, the major world religions (such as Buddhism and Christianity) spring from the root source of love. From these major world religions other smaller sects and subdivisions arise, like twigs from a bough. Populations in different regions throughout the world put a differentiating mark on what is otherwise the same religion and make them into unique ones, out of cultural, moral, or sometimes even political reasons. For instance, the Buddhist sects found in India differ from those, say, in China. And from those sub-religions arise another smaller and more specialized set of other sub-religions. It's an infinite process of divisions and offshoots. But if you reverse the process of proliferation and retrace the paths of all these religious sects, you find that they all boil down to one common root - love.

"Another analogy to religion I always like to draw is that of school. In every school, you have different departments that teach different subjects, such as mathematics, English, history, and science. Within each of these departments, you have another set of divisions. For science, there are the divisions of physics, biology, chemistry, and so forth. And within each of these divisions lie another set of subdivisions, and so forth. Different subjects with different areas of specialization - but the purpose is the same - education.

"Why then, one might ask, are there religions that preach evil deeds? Why has religion, in numerous historical instances, been used to promote and justify the acts of terrorism, political propaganda, cult suicides, and so forth? Here, I think it is crucial to draw a distinction between the religion itself and the way with which an individual or group of people may choose to interpret or use such a religion. Sometimes, for political motivations or for a personal agenda, a group of people in power may choose to distort a particular religion to serve their own self-interest. In that case, the essence of the religion - love- is no longer pure and has been warped by a negative outside factor. In the continual proliferation and outgrowth of so many different religions, it is inevitable that distorting factors such as self-interest are introduced and divorce the resulting new "religion" from its original intent.

"Hence, it is important to remember that religion, per se, is a good thing. When one practices a religion, one should be aware of what it is ultimately about and not be misled into blind practice of its specific tenets. I always believe it is important to develop such an awareness. Rote memorization and recitation of a religion's principles and ideas, and perfunctory performance of its rituals mean little if one doesn't live it. Only through a lifestyle of generosity, kindness, and love, and a positive contribution to humankind can one consider oneself a true practitioner of any religion."
Jet Li

The Unspoken Rules of Lego

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (chapter 26), I like what Pirsig has to say about the Japanese Mu as a “third option”; ”unask the question”; the context of the question asked is in error. The concept itself isn't really new to me, it's just nice to have a word, a name to actually identify it with. It makes the abstract and nameless concept so much more solid and concrete.

I think this may actually apply to the Unspoken Rules of building with Lego.

I've built with Lego and I've watched my children build with Lego. It always begins the same way: with a bag or a box (or possibly a bucket or pail) of blocks. After that, the sky's the limit as to what may be created! Houses, cars, trucks, animals, people, letters, etc., etc., etc.. This is always true, regardless of what the boxed set was supposed to be. Right or wrong, you can still build an alphabet letter out of a medieval castle set. I suppose it could be said that one is only limited by their imagination.

Although I'm not sure what the Unspoken Rules of Lego are, I am sure that they exist. Now, I realize this is free play we are talking about, but what if we were to view playing with Lego as an unsolved problem or question? Say you could not “find” the answer in the almost unlimited varieties of forms. What would the Japanese Mu option be here? What would Lego's Unspoken Rules be?

Build outside the box... literally.
Get pieces from another set. Or, even better yet, try out Megabloks. They are compatible you know.

Let's step away from this analogy. What I am talking about is understanding God. I agree, it isn't enough to say, ”Yes, I believe in God”. It must go one step further and ask the question, ”How am I to know God's will so that I may attempt to follow it?”
Too often this question is assumed to be, how am I to understand the bible, or, more specifically, the Unspoken Rules of understanding the bible. Let's be clear here; I am not talking about interpreting the bible. There are numerous ideas, theologies, and doctrines, all built from the bible. But that is the unspoken rule, isn't it? That the 'building blocks' are all contained within the bible. This isn't a question of understanding and interpreting the bible. This is a question of understanding God.

I've built with Lego and I've watched my children build with Lego. It always begins the same way: with a bag or a box (or possibly a bucket or pail) of blocks. After that, the sky's the limit as to what may be created! Houses, cars, trucks, animals, people, letters, etc., etc., etc.. This is always true, regardless of what the boxed set was supposed to be. Right or wrong, you can still build an alphabet letter out of a medieval castle set. I suppose it could be said that one is only limited by their imagination. What if playing with Lego was an unsolved problem or question?

How big is your bag of Lego?

Care to share your opinions or join the conversation?