Ancient Religions Had Much in Common, Says Grawemeyer Winner

The ancient Christians had more in common with their Jewish and pagan neighbors than most people realize, says the winner of the 2011 Louisville Grawemeyer Award in Religion.

Luke Timothy Johnson, a biblical scholar and senior fellow at Emory University, won the $100,000 prize for the ideas set forth in his 2009 book, "Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity."

Johnson proposes a new framework in the book for analyzing early Christianity in its religious, social and historical contexts. He shows that the Christians, Jews and pagans of ancient Rome and Greece shared certain ways of being religious regardless of their differences in doctrine.

Johnson's approach is "powerfully illuminating, not only for historical study but also for interfaith relations today," said award director Susan Garrett.

"He shows that if we want to see how early Christians differed from other religious people of their day, we first have to see how they were similar," Garrett said. "And he shines fresh light on the diverse religions of our contemporary world — a light that shows common ground where we thought there were only radical differences."

Johnson, a former Benedictine monk, is Robert C. Woodruff Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins in Emory's Candler School of Theology and senior fellow at its Center for the Study of Law and Religion.

His research focuses on the literary, moral and religious dimensions of the New Testament, including the Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts of early Christianity, Luke-Acts, the Pastoral Letters and the Letter of James.

He is a noted critic of The Jesus Seminar, a group of religious scholars formed in 1985, refuting their examination of Jesus as a purely historical figure. He also has disagreed with Vatican teaching, publicly declaring his support for same-sex partnerships and the ordination of women.

A prolific author, Johnson has written 27 books and more than 300 articles, lectures and reviews.

He holds a doctor of philosophy degree in New Testament from Yale University, a master of arts degree in religious studies from Indiana University, a master of divinity degree in theology from St. Meinrad School of Theology and a bachelor's degree from Notre Dame Seminary.

Five Grawemeyer Awards are presented annually for outstanding works in music composition, world order, psychology, education and religion. The University of Louisville and Louisville Presbyterian Seminary jointly award the religion prize.

Life is a river flowing back to the Sea

I realize the title may make some of you think of the Alan Parsons Project song, Time but there's a deeper purpose to this post. A friend called me tonight because her best friend died. I'd been avoiding thinking of death since the anniversary of my father's death was last week. That date is embedded in my heart and soul, yet now it seems few remember so it's something I share alone. Which is okay, the reality is losing someone you love whether it is a friend or a relative is really a private thing. Words can never properly express what that person meant to you and while people try to give you platitudes which may be very sincere, that does not make the pain go away. Time does make it fade.

Which then got me thinking again about life and death in general. I came across this site, The NDE and Pre-Birth: Kevin Williams' research conclusions and some of the material written there is rather profound. Especially this:

If our experience as a human is analogous to a journey down a river, then our experience as a spirit is analogous to the entire water cycle. Each of us is like a raindrop which fell from a cloud and ultimately entered into a river for the journey back from where it came - the sea. Then the cycle is repeated.

In the same way that a drop of water is a part of the sea and contains within itself the nature of the sea itself, so our spirit is a part of God containing within it the Whole of God itself. This concept of a something being both a part and the Whole is called in science terminology a fractal.

By becoming a droplet in the water cycle, we can experience wonderful adventures which ultimately help us to understand ourselves and the sea even more. Which river of life we choose to travel down is up to us. Once we begin the journey, we are partly at the mercy of the river and the course it takes us. How we chose to flow down the river is our decision.

This river which represents the course of our life that leads us back to God is an archetype that is familiar to us. Perhaps this is one of the reasons we feel drawn to rivers and why we regarded them as sacred. In ancient cultures, religions and even in near-death experiences, this archetype of life being a river appears. On the river, we are always moving forward from a source and toward an end. Life starts out as a small creek and grows into large river with rapids, forks, tributaries, rocks, and sometimes floods. Rivers have a history and are evolving. The river of life can take us to a variety of destinations on shore. There are many decisions and choices to make while traveling the river. Sometimes we have no choice at all but submit to the mercy of the river. At times we can relax and go with the flow. Other times we can shoot the rapids. We can row our boats gently down the stream. But if we just remain on the shore, we will never reach our destination and goal. Wisdom means knowing the best course of action to take as we travel down the river.

I strongly recommend those of you remaining on the shore, think about diving in, before your boat passes you by...

You can think about Jesus...Just don't mention his name at City Council...

I'm almost caught up on things I'd like to blog about like this article from yesterday in the Toledo Blade, Council urges caution regarding invocations, I wanted to express my thoughts and have you share your thoughts on this whole debate about prayer and to point out, in my humble opinion there is no such thing as a nonsectarian prayer. There are nondenominational prayers, but one thing that all of those who believe in God share is...they believe in God. That at it's very essence is sectarian. Those who don't believe in God or any higher power are not a part of that "sect."

Yet we play games and pretend that if we just ban naming Jesus and I'm guessing the Virgin Mary too and maybe Jehovah, that it's okay. The Supreme Court has ruled legislative prayer is widely acknowledged to be an exception to the constitutional prohibition on governmental prayer. (link and link as reference) This has come up elsewhere and in Ohio where:

We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution.

In 2007 a prayer given before the Ohio House made then House members Chris Redfern of Catawba Island and Bob Hagan of Youngstown walk out. Talk about the power of prayer...Logic dictates it was more related to the political positions the pastor was advocating for as opposed to the mere mention of Jesus but Jesus has been a focus in many of these situations. Stone the Preacher has a great example.

I know quite a few people who don't believe in God or any organized religion, I have yet to meet one who was so traumatized by the mere mention of the word Jesus that they could not come before a legislative body such as Toledo City Council. While a Roman Catholic, I also do have to admit that in all of the times I've watched or listened to Toledo City Council or any legislative body that offers a prayer sectarian or nonsectarian, I've yet to see the hand of God come down and inspire legislators either, though some of us have prayed for common sense, for them to get to the point and a variety of other things that have never happened either.

The question that I believe that should be asked is how does the word Jesus harm a person? If I am walking down a public street and a street minister is utilizing his first amendment right to speech, to tell me that if I do not repent I am going to hell, can I sue him because I find his behavior offensive or traumatic to me? The public street is as much mine as the City Council chambers is. If he stops me and tells me I must repent or pray with him at that moment for me to continue on with my business then it would be a problem, but similar to what happens during those few moments used in prayer before a legislative body, no one is forced to pray just as no one is forced to say the pledge of allegiance and no one is forced to sing the national anthem.

Our Founding Fathers did not want there to be an organized national religion, one where you were forced to join or suffered the consequences. Even they didn't agree on religion but they did agree with that. Those who like to argue if we are a Christian Nation or not often cite the Treaty with Tripoli, as proof we are not a Christian Nation, which anyone who has studied the Treaty of Tripoli will tell you, the original document was in Arabic and the original does not contain the same wording. (One of the many links on that topic.) It's also impossible to argue that while the Federal Government did not advocate for a federal or national religion that many of the early state constitutions specifically mentioned God and Jesus...An example, Delaware:

ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:

" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."

And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:

" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

And all officers shall also take an oath of office.

Or Pennsylvania who had a similar form:

I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

We've argued about this for years, but the separation of church and state was not a requirement of the actual states that made up the United States of America, it was the federal state...Using the Treaty of Tripoli ignores a variety of other documents that contradict including the much cited Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, it comes down to an argument over which documents hold more power...

While demanding such an oath of office is today something that would not be demanded to be able to serve as an elected official, is the mere utterance of the name Jesus in a legislative setting a barrier to citizen participation in government? Do we have freedom of religion or freedom from religion? Do we have freedom of speech or do we have freedom from speech...It seems difficult to view telling someone they are not allowed to say Jesus as being just as wrong as forcing someone to say it.

Ramadan begins in the US...and my house...

No, I have not converted, I am still a Roman Catholic but one of my daughters is more interested in Islam and my youngest, never being one to be left out of anything is also practicing Ramadan this year which in the US began today. I have to admit the first day of Ramadan was profitable for me, because to take her mind off of not being able to eat or drink anything until sunset (8:24 pm - yes they knew on the dot) she decided to clean. My kitchen is now spotless and totally re-organized.

Ramadan also takes the topic of diets and diet pills one that's not discussed at all. What's being discussed is will the youngest make it, how many days before she breaks and decides that type of fasting is not for her. She kept opening the fridge and looking today, considering it's only day one? I'm not sure she'll make it until September 19th...

Burning bibles...

The truth can be difficult to find out and this story is a prime example of that. Earlier this month Al Jazeera took a video clip of American soldiers in Bagram stated to have been recorded almost a year ago by some sources, and used it to present what their viewpoint, which was that US troops urged to share faith in Afghanistan. Though if you watch the video clip it's clear that Sgt. James Watts states that the bibles were sent to him from his church back home.

Now this story is in the news again because it's been confirmed that the bibles were destroyed. A more recent article on Al Jazeera reports also that the Bibles were burned:

The US army in Afghanistan has burned Bibles printed in local languages, a US colonel in Afghanistan has said, amid concerns they could have been used to try to convert Afghans.

"My understanding is that the [military] leadership confiscated these Bibles so that they could not be distributed around Afghanistan," Colonel Greg Julian told Al Jazeera on Wednesday.

"It was their best judgement at the time, that the best way to deal with it, was to destroy them and I understand that they were burnt."

It's also pointed out by a few media sources that this was not an official military action but was related to one soldier, Sgt. Watts, who was not aware that he could not hand out the Bibles. Fox news as one example.

The controversy doesn't end there though, now there some claiming Mikey Weinstein demanded the chaplain in the video be court-martialed (which I haven't found beyond him suggesting something similar 2006) and those who have created petitions claiming that the rights of the religious are being attacked by domestic enemies of religious liberty.

This isn't about our soldiers not having the right to worship God while they are in the military, it isn't about our country stopping them from having access to religious material. It's about respecting the laws in other countries, even if you don't agree with them, it is against the law in Afghanistan to try to convert Muslims to another faith. As pointed out during the case of Abdul Rahman:

Afghanistan's 2004 constitution states that "no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam" (Article 3) thus affirming that apostasy from Islam is punishable by death. On the other hand, the constitution's preamble affirms that the people of Afghanistan will respect the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in Article 18 guarantees the freedom to change one's religion.

Non-Muslim Afghans who have never been Muslims have a measure of freedom in that they are permitted to "exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of the law" (Article 2). This applies to Afghan Hindus, Sikhs and the one remaining member of Afghanistan's Jewish community. But it does not apply to Afghan Christians (or other non-Muslims) who have chosen to convert from Islam.

Making it appear that the US military sanctions these laws to be broken is wrong, but it's also just as wrong to use what happened as a way to further a personal agenda here in the US and there are some on both sides of this issue not acting very different when it comes to skewing what happened and a lack of honesty.

Disagree without being disagreeable

It's a noble cause to attempt to "disagree without being disagreeable" it's one that I've tried to do for years and at times have not always met with success, I've discovered something in my years of having that as a goal. The person you are disagreeing with has to share it as a belief too and despite what we may want to accept, our nation has quite a few people who will always be "disagreeable" no matter what.

They have to be, because once they stop being disagreeable they'd have to actually rethink their positions, they'd have to stop and rethink how they treated others. It's much easier for them to be disagreeable, living an existence that typically includes the hypocrisy of expecting them to be treated one way, yet treating others in the exact same manner that they claim is wrong to do.

It'd be easy to pretend that only one party or one group in our nation does this, but that's far from the truth. A prime example of that has been evidenced with the reaction over the selection of Rick Warren, part of which is pointed out in this article that inspired my soap box moment about those who are disagreeable, Put differences aside, let us pray together. For us to really put our differences aside, both sides would have to actually do that. It rarely happens, what does happen is one side demands the other put their differences aside but are not willing to do the same.

We spend more time focusing on what divides us and as long as we continue to do that and we continue to forget what should be our common goals? Things will continue to be pretty disagreeable...

Attack on Mormons or truth in advertising?

While the votes may be counted in California's proposition 8 and the court challenges still remain, one of the things still being discussed is an ad that was ran late in the campaign. Some believe it was reasonable given the amount of money spent by those who identified themselves as Mormons and others believe it was an ugly attack. I found the ad on YouTube and have posted it here so you can decide for yourself:

Wright-speak lost its place

Recommended article in today's Washington Post, He's Preaching to A Choir I've Left.

One part in particular that really struck me:

That other African Americans and I were able to overcome seemingly insurmountable hurdles is undeniably due, in part, to Wright-like prophetic speech. Like Negro spirituals, it helped us organize, motivate and empower ourselves.

But just as spirituals eventually lost their relevance and potency as an organizing tool against discrimination -- even as they retained their historical importance in the African American cultural narrative -- so, I believe, has Wright-speak lost its place. It's harmful and ultimately can't provide healing. And it's outdated in the 21st century.

Maybe that is the key to this finally ending, when enough people come to that realization that to get to the future, you have to leave the past.

St. Patrick's Day and the Catholic Church...

This was an interesting article that I came across today, St. Patrick's Day, Catholic Church march to different drummers.

Don the green and boil the cabbage: St. Patrick's Day celebrations are starting early this year — at least for some Irish-Americans who don't want to run afoul of the Roman Catholic Church.

Festivities kick off this weekend — more than a week before March 17 — with Philadelphia, Milwaukee and New Haven, Conn., among cities holding parades. That's because St. Patrick's Day falls during Holy Week for the first time since 1940.

And to preserve the week's solemn focus, church officials have moved St. Patrick's feast day up to March 14. Some event organizers have moved up their celebrations as well.

It's an easy way to find out who really supports the religious aspect and who's in it just for the green beer.

:-)

Do Stem Cells Grown From Unfertilized Eggs Have Souls?

Do Stem Cells Grown From Unfertilized Eggs Have Souls, is the question being asked by Brandon Keim in this blog article written on Wired. I realize I am a Catholic but my initial instinct when reading that question was to answer no. That to me the actual creation of life does not happen without a sperm that a chemical reaction somehow created in a laboratory was not the same act as actual fertilization of a part of a man and a woman together that created life and therefore then a soul.

It appears I am not in agreement with the presented belief of the Catholic Church as presented by Tad Pacholczyk of the National Catholic Bioethics Center.

Maybe he never watched that scene from the movie "Look who's Talking"...I looked for the original sperm scene from that on YouTube, and did not find it but did find this creative modification of it:

Muslim women discover US does not always mean freedom...

I think it's important to point out that abusive spouses are not one race or one heritage or socio-economic group or even one religion, it's a deeper issue than just one group of people. Yet as this Washington Post article, entitled, For Some Muslim Wives, Abuse Knows No Borders shows us, there is an increased pressure in some immigrant communities to take abuse or to have additional reasons to fear leaving an abuser.

Especially the community response when a woman leaves:

In Shireen's case, even a college degree and a good job could not fend off the demands of family and community bent on fitting her into a traditional Muslim mold. Now that she finally has freed herself from an unhappy match, she said, she has become a pariah to the family that once hovered around her.

"I know I was stupid to give in, but you get overwhelmed by all the pressure," she said. "Now I have been totally shunned. I embarrassed my husband in the eyes of the community. It doesn't matter why I left him or what he did to me. Even in America, you can't always get away from home."

Miracle medals...

Still on the topic of Catholicism, on a trip to New Orleans several years ago I spent a great deal of time in St. Augustine Church and then afterwards looked at many catholic medals that I had not seen here in the Toledo area. I ended up coming home with a miracle medal, that I still have today and cherish. While I haven't been back to New Orleans, it appears that St. Augustine did survive thru the hurricanes...

My patron Saint...

Since I converted to catholicism at older age, I selected my additional middle name in the tradition of being one of the catholic saints. There is of course no Saint Renee yet, so I selected Saint Rose of Lima, thinking at least that way my initials would be the same. There were quite a few Saints who had an interesting history, including St. Rose.

:-)