Jan's Stinkin Blog: March 2013

Saturday, March 30, 2013

HOLY WEEK: Did Jesus exist?

I have enjoyed watching THE BIBLE on the HISTORY CHANNEL and especially the episodes about Jesus, perfectly timed for HOLY WEEK.

I guess what I enjoyed the most is seeing how producers and directors choose to portray Jesus in the stories about him in the Bible; in most cases they were true to Gospel accounts but it was how the actors (and their director) portrayed the actual characters that made it so very interesting.

The biggest question in many people’s minds or at least the people that study the subject, is why with all that Jesus did, the thousands of people he spoke to, the many miracles he performed, with all what went on at this time, why was there nothing written about him or what he did by historians etc.; the only accounts we get are from the Gospels which are not history books.

After all, we have non-Gospel accounts about Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist and even James the Just, Jesus’ brother, but nothing about Jesus himself.

I will have to define “nothing” a little better.

It could be that Jesus’ time on earth was very short (30 years); not enough time to garner attention from historians. Also, Jesus did not really cause historic events that would be noticed by historians; his impact would come later as Christianity was invented and spread around the world.

The “only” reference to Jesus, that we have, is one by Josephus (37-100 AD) who wrote a history of the Jews which actually included a reference to James the Just “whose brother was Jesus; the so called Christ; a mention somewhat in passing.

The reason Josephus did not write anything about Jesus was because there was nothing to write about Jesus; his brother James did more to garner a historian’s attention.

I guess it seems strange that with the strength of Christianity in our world today nothing was written about the so called founder of the religion that bears his title CHRIST-TIANITY.

This lack of “outside” evidence of Jesus has created a group of people who doubt that Jesus even existed. They basically call Jesus a myth created by the inventors of Christianity starting with St. Paul.

There is no doubt that Jesus was “mythicized” by the Gospel writers to the point of declaring Jesus a god even though his own apostles did not believe that but a person called Jesus is believed to have existed by most Biblical scholars even scholars that are not really religious but objective historians.

During this Holy Week with all those movies and specials about Jesus on TV it is easy to get caught up in those stories as if they were history but alas they are but stories albeit with a kernel of truth in some of them…

on a later blog I will go into why we believe that Jesus did actually exist and is not merely a myth.

Pope Francis makes his own way?

I was happy to see an article in the Detroit Free Press entitled: POPE WASHES GIRLS’ FEET, UPSETTING TRADITIONALISTS by Nicole Winfield of the Associated Press.

I really liked the “upsetting traditionalists” the most.

I think a lot of Catholics were hoping, no praying for a pope that may be different and do certain things differently because many Catholics see some type of change from the usual as absolutely necessary.

Popes make laws and really don’t have to follow any laws which are mostly past traditions and not really laws. As Benedict tried to move the Church BACK into pre-Vatican II traditions, Francis seems to be charting HIS OWN PATH FOR THE Church.

Washing feet has always been a Holy Thursday tradition, following the story of Jesus washing his disciple’s feet as a sign of humility. For this reason popes usually washed the feet of other priests (disciples) but Francis decided to wash the feet of young people held in juvenile detention, probably for some crime they committed. The difference was not only that he washed the feet of non-priests but that he washed the feet of two FEMALES which is a huge departure and then add that one of the females was actually a Muslim…my, my?

To me, breaking the tradition signals to me that he wants the tradition to carry a different meaning than it has in the past. Washing the feet of priests in today’s Catholic environment, to me, is meaningless and even improper as in do they deserve a pope to wash their stinkin’ feet (priestly abuses)?

Washing the feet of people that have lost their way signals that the pope wants priests to return to ministering to their flock and not abusing their flock.

Francis seems to emulate St. Francis and his ministering to the poor and downtrodden; a simpler goal than taking the Church backwards into the Dark Ages as Benedict tried to do.

I said that Francis may be a “sleeper”; a cleric bidding his time until he makes pope and then watch out.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

LOTS OF COMMOTION AT THE SUPREME COURT OVER GAY MARRIAGE ISSUES!

Well we did not have riots over the Gay Marriage issue at the Supreme Court but we definitely had a lot of activity on both sides of the issue.

Yes this is a very emotional issue because it combines religious fervor as well as civil rights fervor; both can get people very excited.

But there is also a “legal” issue and especially a “constitutional” issue which makes these cases (there are two) very complex.

Does our constitution address the issues of gay marriage? That would be a NO along with the Bible which does not address the issue either.

States like California have placed into their state constitution, a ban against gay marriage or at least a declaration that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Can a state do that constitutionally?

Is the definition of marriage a prerogative of a state to make? Should religious beliefs in connection with the definition of marriage play a role in that definition even though we as a country enforce the separation of church and state?

The judges on the Supreme Court do not appear that they are willing to legislate this “social” issue since it does not present a constitutional challenge but to me, the very fact that states have passed state constitutional laws involving the issue of gay marriage and the rights of gay couples, it makes the issue a constitutional issue by simple default; if laws are passed addressing the issue than the Supreme Court must be involved.

What our constitution does do is protect our individual rights as outlined in the U.S. Constitution and it is those rights, not definitions of marriage that play a major role in this issue. Does an individual or a couple have a “right” to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I say yes to that question and will watch and read closely the arguments presented at the Supreme Court.

One question asked by Anthony Scalia showed me that some judges are really not well versed in this subject.

Scalia asked if children with gay parents are harmed in any way. The American Academy of Pediatrics (60,000 pediatricians) has issued their support of same sex marriages and the adoption of children in such marriages. They said that their support is specifically because 30 years of research has shown that children of gay parents are no worst off than children of heterosexual parents.

Photo Book

Click here to view this photo book larger

Build your own high-quality photo books at Shutterfly.com.

Monday, March 25, 2013

RIOTS IN PARIS OVER GAY MARRIAGE???

I was a little surprised to see rioting in Paris that needed pepper spray and tear gas to control. What were 300,000 people so upset about in France? It was a new law that was being passed through the legislature there called “Marriage for Everyone” law.

This law allows gay marriage and adoptions by gay couples.

I thought the French were progressives but here it appears they are not as progressive as Americans??? That just cannot be true.

It seems that France is a mostly Catholic country even though throughout its history and especially during its French Revolution, Catholicism was despised and Catholic clerics beheaded.

News reports say that right-wing conservative Christians (Catholics) were bused in from around the country to demonstrate against the law and hopefully prevent its enactment.

The socialist government is very much behind this new law and it will be interesting to see how things develop.

The fact that this demonstration turned into a violent riot seems a little strange since it was organized by the Catholic Church there.

I will have to investigate French Catholicism in more detail since Europe in general is very secular.

Sunday, March 24, 2013

REPUBLICANS PRO GAY MARRIAGE???

The Republican leadership, in general, has been saying that Republicans must change and become more INCLUSIVE if they are to remain a viable political party.

Since gay marriage issues are before the Supreme Court right now, I have been reading about and hearing a number of Republicans come out FOR gay marriage rights. This is obviously a huge reversal so what do it all mean?

Republicans have been STAUNCH opponents of gay marriage saying marriage is only for heterosexual people from the beginning. Cracks in that position started when some Republicans discovered that they had gay children namely Chaney and McCain among others.

Recently at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) one could sense the fact that Republicans were abandoning Gay Marriage Wars and joining the majority of people in America supporting gay marriage and gay rights.

How can Republicans do such an about face? Well, for one, they want to win elections but on philosophical grounds which were always religious as in fundamentalism, they are starting to see that many Christians and Christian religions are distancing themselves from strict Bible interpretation of homosexuality as sin which the Bible does not say that but many say it does.

One minister from North Carolina and a Methodist was asked that question and he simply replied that the Bible says nothing about the internet or homosexuality as a life style…so there!

I recently saw a commercial where a soldier sitting with his female wife says that he is a Republican conservative who has defended America’s freedoms in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that one of those freedoms is to marry who you want. He also added that his brother is gay and was best man at his wedding as he will be best man at his brother’s wedding…powerful words, powerful image.

But my question remains: if you can alter your principals and solid beliefs just to win elections, how much do you really believe in your principals, in your convictions?

There has been a huge shift in sentiments about gay marriage and gay rights in the last few years…why?

I think the realization that homosexuality is NOT A CHOICE but something you are born with, has made a huge difference. To me, simple reason told me that no heterosexual male would EVER want to be with a man instead of a woman; the sexuality of heterosexual men is just that strong as, I suppose, is that of gay men.

I have recently emailed my Republican state senator urging him to continue his efforts at economic reform in the state but to stay the hell out of social issues that do not pertain to him or the legislature. I told him to stay the hell out of my bedroom as well as my house and leave family matters to me. And above all else do NOT try to cram your religion down my throat or the throat of any American; religion is a private matter and not something to legislate as our Founding Fathers have stated at the beginning of this great republic.

I am hoping we as a country, are seeing a historic trend…love watching history be made!