Re-Structuring

how do you write a paper when you have a fluid theology? it's like nailing jello to the wall. i find myself writing too systematically. but Sabio had a good idea and has helped me re-order the paper, more on that later.

when presented with the opportunity to talk about God, Jesus, Humanity and the state of the world, i could type a book that would rival war and peace. i love talking about theological implications, talking about probabilities and exceptions, exploring all aspects and outcomes of a given topic. but i can't do that here... i gotta boil it down and keep it simple as this will be lay people reading the paper. not saying that these people are stupid or anything, but i know i wouldn't wanna read something that wasn't engaging. i don't wanna bore 'em with my ranting and rambling.

so i looked online for tips, and i found this ordination paper by Lynne A. Burmeister McQuown that is absolutely inspired. i just wanna put my name on it and print it out and hand it in.. but that'd be bad... so i'll have to steal from it.. after all, "good artists borrow, great artists steal," Picasso I said that. also looking around for how to explain God, i found Faithful Progressives note on Paul Tillich and the God of the new atheists. fantastic!

What i wanna do is just put:

I dunno what exactly i believe but i can say that it starts with and is inspired by the life of Jesus Christ. I dunno if Jesus was God but I can say that I best meet God through the example of Christ. Grace-filled, compassionate at the core and joyful of existence while noting that there is suffering in the world. Loving thy neighbor as yourself sets up an inclusive ethos that doesn't set aside or supercede other religions but places Christians as servants to others regardless of race, creed, or nationality.

and then i would play them these two songs to explain how i view the UCC:





So what i've decided to do is re-structure under the rubric that Sabio suggested where in his suggestion of the "art paragraph" collapsed community and tradition together. so part one will be my view of transcendent truth (God, as presented by Jesus, in my case) part two will be Community, specifically the UCC and the third will be my personal journey experience. this will streamline the whole paper and won't make it so cumbersome to write. thank God that i have my atheist friend Sabio ;-) this is why i blog. dialogue and relationships are important, in fact vital to existence.

it takes all of us.

i'll post more this coming Tuesday. until then.... thanks for your comments and keep 'em coming!

The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived?

in my facebook COEXIST forum, this question was asked and i responded:

i think the guys from Weezer are. after all, they have the song with the title of this thread. however, it's on their red album and it sucked and that discounts that.

I'd go with Jesus.

and what about women? who is the great woman who ever lived? my money is on Catherine of Sienna or Gloria Steinem.

which a response came that:

I hate to vote against Jesus (I do not wish to be insulting to those who hold him in high regard), but as a man I would say he accomplished nothing, and as a god, the term underachiever comes to mind.


Paul was much more influential than Jesus. His writings and those of his followers Mark and Luke comprise a great part, perhaps the majority of the New Testement and transform the biblically recorded works of Jesus from insignificant to not only miraculous but the path to eternal life.

I don't know about the greatest but given Christianity's affects on western civilization, Paul certainly has to be nominated as the most influential person ever.

aside from the fact that this person views Christ as a failure (aren't there scriptures that speak to this? ;-)) there is a good point in the fact that Paul is oft quoted more than Christ in many of our churches. It is my opinion that the more conservative the church, the more you hear Paul. this has been my experience and i could be way off here...

i've been thinking about this question for a while and wonder at the rubric we're using. and since Jason got me reading a certain philosopher again, i had to ask "are we using what Nietzsche called "The master morality" or the "slave morality"?"

Slave morality: the morality created by oppressed people in order to overturn the prevailing values of those in power. Nietzche raises up the example of the early Christians and their new way of thinking that opposed the morality of their Roman masters.

According to Nietzche, morality has never been created through reason, or appeals to civility, or practicality or any other traditional method described by philosophers. instead those in power decide what's good. this is esp. true in the earlies moralities where aristocrats and kings held all the real power in society and dictated what was important in life.

"It was 'the good' themselves, that is to say, the noble, powerful, high-stationed and high-minded, who felt and est. themselves and their actions as good, that is of the first rank, in contradistinction to all the low, low-minded, common, and plebeian."

Master Morality: include power, beauty, strength, and fame, in other words WORLDLY attributes and partly because the attributes enabled them to stay in power. like Homer's Iliad claims Achilles is the best because he's the most powerful and strongest. In Greek Society, it was the heroes that were the best.

so for me then, the greatest men and women who live are those who resist and follow a slave morality. Gandhi, MLK Jr, Jesus, Paul, St Teresa, Rosa Parks, and many others. those are who we need to hold up as ppl to follow vs. what advertising, government, and yes, even some religious leaders tell us.

to all those in the resistence: inform, infect, do what is unexpected: we are winning: