A Blameless Person?

Is it possible for a man to live on earth with no sin? Surely not, or so say many modern Christians.

Genesis 6:9 reads:

Noah was a righteous man, the only blameless man living in the region at that time, and he walked in close fellowship with God.

How is that possible? After all, Romans 3:23 tells us that

every single person has sinned and fallen short of God's glorious standards.

I see a contradiction between these two verses. "To sin" means "to miss the mark." It was originally a term in archery to refer to the act of an arrow missing its target. In this context, it refers to falling short of the standards set. Logically, then, if some person "missed the mark," he would be with blame, and any person who is blameless must be without sin. It is quite clear, then, that one of these two verse must be wrong, thereby negating sola scriptura. That leaves two possibilities to reconcile the Bible:

1. Noah was not blameless. This is not likely, because it quite clearly states that he was blameless, without sin. Also, his story was written by a third party who has no motive to lie.
2. Paul was wrong. This is fairly likely. After all, Paul was a man attempting to justify his own shortcomings. There is indeed a motive to stretch the truth.

Many churches teach that Jesus is the only perfect person, but their own book contradicts them. This does not mean Jesus' life was insignificant, but it does indicate that many teachings about him need to be reevaluated.

Another proof that Noah was a sinless man living after the Fall is his apparent close fellowship with God. Allegedly, God abhors sin and cannot be in its presence. However, Noah fellowshipped and walked with God, therefore he must have lived without sin.

Noah was not the only sinless person in the Bible apart from Jesus, either. In fact, the Old Testament is riddled with perfection. Enoch and Job are just two other examples to speak of...

How would you reconcile these seemingly opposing verses?

Natural Talent

You know, I'm a little bit tired of all the quotes I'm hearing along the lines of "all that matters is if you try. If you try, you will succeed. Period." Honestly, I'm not sure I completely agree with that.

Sure, dedication is good. Don't misconstrue my words.However, I feel that there is an undue emphasis placed on determination and perseverance.Sometimes, you need skill. Sometimes, you need talent. I say this, because I know some people are getting the idea that skill and ability (and, therefore, preparation) are meaningless.

I walk a fine line now. Doubtless, there are some readers who feel I hit the nail on the head, but there are likely others who feel like I am telling them not to try. That is quite the opposite of what I wish to convey. The emphasis placed on perseverance is often inside the proverbial ring. How often do we hear - really hear - about the dedication oustide the ring? We generally see it in the movies, but people have a way of blocking out what movies tell us. But think about who the most famous "dedicated" people, real or fictional, are. Who came to your mind? Rocky? Stephen Hawking?

Let's look at Stephen Hawking. Yes, he has ALS, which is a severe setback, and, yes, he did persevere through that. However, much of his dedication and perseverance was unrelated to his disease. He was born intelligent, and he cultivated his intelligence throughout his childhood, long before he became paralyzed.

I highly doubt the average Joe, stricken with ALS, would suddenly become a genius.

The notable exception to the "preparation breeds success" maxim is Harry Potter, and J.K. Rowling might be to blame. He was the Chosen One, yes, but did he take anyone up on the offer? Well, he became successful, or, at least, we attribute successful deeds to him. But what did he do? Take the first movie, for instance. How did Harry, Ron, and Hermione reach the end? Ron played the chess match; Hermione solved the subsequent puzzle. What was Harry's job? He went to the final room, where Professor Quirrell nearly killed him. That is the result of poor preparation and an overconfidence in one's own natural abilities - perseverance inside the ring. The only thing that saved Harry's life was a recurring series of lucky incidents in which every good wizard in the hemisphere suddenly realized that he needed help and came to his rescue.

Salt

What do we use salt for? Flavor? Why do we find it flavorful? Because it is familiar. In the past, salt was used for preservation, not flavor. In fact, salt was used for preservation until quite recently. Which means that its function during the Biblical was preservation, not seasoning.

Interesting.

This imparts a completely different meaning to Mark 9:50, which reads:

'Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other.' (NIV)

The New Living Translation specifically says salt is good for 'seasoning,' but I attribute that to translation error. However, the second part of the verse is much clearer. It says to have the qualities of salt, being at peace with one another.

How can the quality of salt in yourself create peace? What does this salt represent?

If it represents preservation, then it must be preserving something. Jesus often spoke of faith in relation to peace and love. Because these things are seen as central to Jesus' teachings, these are likely what must be preserved. So, Jesus says that faith must be 'preserved' by 'salt.' Simple, right? Obviously, it refers to doctrine.

But the second part of the verse asks how salt can be made salty again if it loses its saltiness. Of course, it cannot be made salty again, and must be thrown out into the streets. The salt has to be replaced. If our doctrine no longer works for us, if it loses its saltiness, it must be cast out and remade in order to preserve our faith.

This would also explain why large religious organizations rise, fall, and are forgotten. A specific interpretation of God (as a Father, a Mother, a King, or a Queen) serves a specific purpose, but what happens when that purpose has been completed and the interpretation is no longer necessary? It must be remade in the furnace. This is not heretical, if you remember that these are simply 'metaphors.'

Duality

Wave-particle duality is a scientific phenomenon in which light - and even matter - can be demonstrated to have either the properties of a wave or those of a particle, depending on the experiment a scientist performs. In certain circumstances, a single atom can be shown to be spread out over a vast area (like a field of energy), but, under different conditions, the same atom can be shown as a compressed packet of matter (the conventional observation).

This observation is fundamental to quantum theory, but it is applicable as symbolism far beyond the realm of physics. Many will warn against the use of quantum physics to promote 'mysticism,' so allow me to preface my words with a disclaimer: all references to the spirit and its relations with quantum theory are to be viewed as metaphorical, not literal.

When performing a certain experiment, scientists spread the same atom in two different locations, 'boxes.' They know this, because they can continue the experiment in such a way that the atom appears in a way that only a wave, as multipresent, could appear. However, if they do not continue the experiment and, instead, peer inside the boxes, they find that the atom is only one. The atom has collapsed from a wave state to a particle state. This probably sounds confusing, but this confusion is a good thing. Neils Bohr said, 'If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it.'

If wave-particle duality is correct (which it, indeed, is), it means our entire existence is the coexistence of two inherently incompatible ideas. Think about it. This is no different than saying x equals two, but it does not equal two because it equals thirteen, but it does not equal thirteen because it equals two, and so on ad infinitum. Our life is thus a contradiction. This concept is representational (symbolic) of God. God is spread out (like a vast energy (similar to the Force or many ideas in pantheism) but, at the same time, is also a compressed 'lump' capable of conscious thought and will (the traditional concept of God). Just as with light and matter, it all depends on how we look at It.

I propose these two conceptions of God as pandio (the former idea) and centradio (the latter idea).

The fact that God can be seen as both incompatible ideas simultaneously reinforces the idea that God is transcedent, something incomprehensible to the human mind. If I look at God as pandio, and you look at God as centradio, we are not worshiping different Gods. The only difference between our beliefs is that I choose to focus my thoughts on one aspect of God (the 'lamb'), and you choose to focus your thoughts on another equally true aspect of God (the 'lion'). After all, has not God acted as both a lamb and a lion (in addition to many other personae) throughout history?

Meditation

I am going to start by making an excuse - no, an explanation (an excuse implies I did no wrong). My absence has been a result of a pursuit in other activities. Reading three books at one time is an amazing time sap. Add that in with assisting a church, dancing on the weekend, etc., and you suddenly have little time to blog. Then, when you do have time to make an entry, it become remarkably easy to think of a reason why you cannot. With that said, I have returned; I will try to remain active this time. Senior year is starting soon, though, and college applications will take some time.

Well, almost two weeks ago (the Friday before last), all the VBS volunteers (myself included) went to the organizer's house. It was the last day of VBS, so we were relaxing, playing volleyball, and so forth. At one point, all of us were sitting in the living room. Understand, I was sitting amongst a group of Southern Baptists - the only one who does not believe in sola scriptura. I cannot remember what we were discussing, but one of the workers said this:

'I love to sit outside at night and look at the stars and think about the universe. I know that's considered - like - meditation...'

And I immediately thought to myself (I refrained from saying anything to her, because I was not exactly among friends, though I desperately wanted to): 'So? What's wrong with meditation?'

I realized something that day. My own theology has taken me so far away from my starting point that, from a surface glimpse, I am almost unrecognizable. Many Christians - many theists in general - do not understand what meditation is.

The word 'meditation' comes from the prefix 'med-' in Indo-European languages, which meant 'to measure.' In other words, it means to weigh your convictions and feelings, to discard the bad and cultivate the good. It is simply a process of self-betterment. Did not God say in the Bible that He would do the same thing? Matthew 7:19 says, 'So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire.' Similarly, John 15:2 says that 'He cuts off every branch of mine that doesn't produce fruit, and he prunes the branches that do bear fruit so they will produce even more.' This is simply symbolism to refer to a process of self-improvement, the same process that is attempted during meditation.

Meditation was described in "Meditation, melatonin and breast/prostate cance: hypothesis and preliminary data" (Medical Hypotheses) as 'self regulation of attention, in the service of self-inquiry, in the here and now.' It is simply a process of self-examination. For example, the definition of yoga, a form of meditation, is 'a yoking of one's mind.' Some forms of meditation are so effective that the monks actually become smarter and healthier.

More on that can be found here: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/06/10/want-a-bigger-stronger-brain-start-meditating/

In Buddhism, there is a story the the first Buddha gave an entirely silent sermon. He sat on the hillside, with all his disciples in front of him. He silently held up a flower, saying nothing. The entire group sat there for a long time without a word being uttered. After awhile, one of the monks began to smile. He is said to have been the only one to understand the meaning of the sermon. He achieved a sense of 'oneness' with the world and with God. He felt connected and recognized the beauty in the simplicity of a flower, something we often today take for granted.

Taking this to heart, many Quakers' favorite form of worship is known as 'communal silent prayer,' which is an attempt to reach God's essence and attain a sense of closeness with Him.

If my memory serves correctly, she continued the description of watching the stars with '...but it's so relaxing.'

Exactly.

Where did this all start?

I was wondering where my religious views started. When did I begin the view that 'all religions are metaphors of the same truth?'

As I look back, I feel like the scientist trying to determine the beginning of the universe - I can get closer and closer to the start, but never actually reach it. So far, it seems as if I just woke up one day and said, 'Oh, all religions are metaphors of a supreme reality.' Obviously, that is not how it began, but it might as well be. As Napoleon said, 'History is a set of lies agreed upon.'

That reminds me of the riddle, 'If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound,' and the more perplexing question, 'If someone is born and dies without ever meeting any life form, did he ever exist in the first place?' Logically, we would say yes...but how would we know?

So, I have to wonder, did my thoughts ever really have a beginning, or have I always known, deep down, that this was the truth?

The closest I have come to the beginning was whilst reading Black, by Ted Dekker. It had a quote in it that I still find explains my thoughts nearly perfectly:

'Is the Creator a lamb or a lion?...Some would say that the Creator is a lamb. Some would say he's a lion. Some would say both. The fact is, he is neither a lamb nor a lion. These are fiction. Metaphors. Yet the Creator is both a lamb and a lion. These are both truths...Neither changes the Creator...Only the way we think of him.'

I read that, and it supported my viewpoints. I think I knew before that time, but it confirmed my thoughts on the matter.

Actions

(see the YouTube version of this post here)

There are only two kinds of acts in the world - innovation and integration. One builds the building, the other keeps the integrity of that building.

Do you not believe me? What am I doing now? I am both integrating (bringing outside knowledge into a single discourse) and innovating (applying that knowledge in a brand new way). What are you doing? You are integrating (bringing in knowledge from my blog, an outside source) and probably innovating at the same time (applying this thinking in new ways yourself). Every action is a mix between these two fundamental acts. For example, take a look at the economy.

In the creation of a product, there are four main actions, two innovations and two integrations. The order they occur is: (1) an innovation, (2) an integration, (3) an innovation, and (4) an integration. This is the relentless march of progress.

Allow me to elaborate:

1: Innovation - A researcher or scientist studies information and discovers new things about the universe.

2: Integration - A designer takes the data from one or more scientists and combine them into an idea. In some cases, the first two actions are performed by one person.

3: Innovation - A manufacturer then makes the idea work. He forms a product out of the design. He might also be called a programmer, if the product is a service of some kind.

4: Integration - Another designer takes the various products or services and,

a) in the case of a product, compares products via cost-benefit analysis to determine the best choice or implements them in one product (thereby being an innovator, as well).

b) in the case of a service, seamlessly links multiple services so that they work together.

Here are some examples:

Einstein was an innovator by creating new concepts of the world.

Facebook and Twitter are innovations by the creation of new services.

TweetDeck is an integration, linking Facebook and Twitter so that they work on one convenient client.

The iPhone is both an innovation (a brand new phone) and an integration (bringing in outside concepts, such as mp3 players, applications, internet, etc., so that they work on one 'convenient' product).