Positive Christianity

There has been some discussion of positive atheism and this has clarified into the exploration of a rational base for ethics.  I thought I might present something positive about the contribution of Christianity or more specifically Jesus to this rational ethic dialog.  As I see Christianity expressed by its most vocal adherents it tends to be largely negative so I thought I might present something that I have recognized as a major positive contribution Jesus has made to the dialog of ethics and meaning.  Hence the title Positive Christianity.

I think more agnostics and atheists would recognize the contribution of Jesus more often if Christians would't point to it as evidence of the Holy Spirit working on the hearts of us poor atheists and agnostics.  So with that disclaimer I want to wade into this pool that has more than a few pitfalls.  (Baptismal metaphor intentional)

I have been contemplating the idea of having empathy as a more influential basis for ethics for a while and it has been interesting to see others exploring this idea.  Jesus establishes this basis without referring to it directly with his statement to love your neighbor as yourself.  This appears to be a direct reference to one's ability to project one's experience on another.

Jesus further expands this idea of loving one's neighbor with the clever story of the good Samaritan by expanding the definition of our neighbor to all of humanity.  The misdirection of the story provides a rational trap by which the listener has to answer the question of who is one's neighbor by what they do rather than their class or race.

In this TED video Jeremy Rifkin explores the evolution of empathy...



The ideas that stand out here for me are that humans are soft wired to be good to each other and we can evolve to be wired differently.  We can also have this soft wiring suppressed.  I think some forms of religion suppress this by redefining who our neighbor is and recreate new forms of class that don't deserve empathy within its modified world view.

Sam Harris in another TED video talks about the rational basis for ethics along the same lines.



I think if the Bible was only the phrase love your neighbor as yourself and the parable of the good Samaritan the message would be a lot clearer.  As we engage in the very human dialog of what it means to live with each other and to find meaning without destroying each other I would hope we could learn how to recognize what works from reason informed by empathy.

Christ in Egypt by D.M. Murdock

The book “Christ In Egypt, The Horus-Jesus Connection” is as much a story of Christianity as the New Testament. It is a story of the evolution of religious belief , beginning in Egypt, that continues today. D.M. Murdock begins this story in the introduction to the book. She describes the nature of how this story is told. The Jesus myth is not simply a previous tale of Horus with the name Jesus plugged in where one would read Horus. In fact there is not a single narrative of Horus that we could cite to plug Jesus into. Understanding this story requires an understanding of many different influences. In many ways this book reads like a detective novel.

The transformation of Egyptian religious belief is as much a syncretism of various gods and goddesses as is Christianity. It sets the mode by which humankind created religious belief. What I gather from her description, is this method of syncretism is what the ancient pagans saw as the perfection of the god myth through combining the tales of many different gods. There is evidence that the Egyptians were essentially monotheists and saw the various gods as simply one aspect of the great unknown creator god. They would have no problem combining different gods and their characteristics since they would see these as combining parts of a single great and mysterious god. This is expressed in hieroglyphs which picture a human body and the heads of two different gods on one single body. An example of this is a Horus-Seth united in a single being from the Amduat. Pagans in general had no problem including the gods of other nations and cultures to perfect their god myths. Egyptian influence on Greek, Roman, Persian, Hebrew, and other ancient beliefs is pervasive as you will see when you read this book.

This mode of religious expression is very foreign to the Christian believer who has been taught that God does not change. The assumption is that there was an original pure form of Christianity brought about by the disciples of Jesus and this is expressed perfectly from the Bible today in both spiritual and rational means.

Yet, even within the last 100-200 years we see various forms of Christianity being combined with modern ideas rather freely. This is easily seen by comparing sermons from 100 to 200 years ago to the sermons today. Some would argue that essential doctrines haven’t changed. They can only claim this if they dismiss as Christian those forms of Christianity they disagree with. Since we have many more versions of Christianity today than we did even 100 years ago, it would be difficult to pin down even one official version of Christianity to refute syncretism. And these various versions do disagree on what many consider to be essential doctrines. These doctrines include the nature of Jesus, the method of salvation, method of baptism, authority of the Bible, authority of the Pope, day of worship, and many others. This was as true in the 1st century as it is today.

What we find in this book is that Christian beliefs and practices are far from being unique, but are drawn from ancient practices that existed sometimes thousands of years before Christianity. Some of these practices were well known in the ancient world and some were parts of mystery religions. These practices and beliefs were combined together to meet the needs of the 1st century and then synthesized by force into what we call orthodox Christianity by the Roman empire. Lets look briefly at some of the claims of Christian uniqueness.

The virgin birth of the Christ (Anointed) child is central to the claim of Divine origin for Jesus. It has been presented as a unique feature of the Christian religion and the implication is that when it does occur in pagan systems of belief it is a late, post Christian, addition. D.M. Murdock provides extensive documentation of not only the virgin birth being a characteristic of Horus, but his mother Isis is a prototype of the virgin Mary. Early Christian imagery of Jesus and Mary is clearly a copy of the Horus/Isis virgin mother with child. The name Mary means beloved and is commonly merged with the name Isis in the form of Meri or Isis-Meri or Isis the beloved. Virginity has a number of reasons for its inclusion in these god myths. Later reasoning emphasized the need for purity and in the case of Jesus, virginity was proof that Jesus did not come from a human source.

One reason that it is so difficult to find other examples of virgin birth within the literature is because the term parthenogenesis is used for virgin (partheno) birth (genesis). This has been done to hide the fact that it is difficult to find any great leader or god in the ancient world that wasn't the product of virgin birth and is far from unique. The word in greek παρθένος parthenos means virgin and is the prominent root of the Greek temple to the goddess Athena called the Parthenon. This structure was predictably converted to a Christian church dedicated to the Virgin Mary in the 6th century.

In the early case of Isis the reason for virginity was quite different. Isis, being the Goddess creator and origin of all life, would have to birth the universe as a virgin. This would make sense to the ancients who would observe that life emerged from the female gender in most species of life. So early creator gods were Goddesses and Earth itself was called Mother Earth. More specifically, Isis births the sun as baby Horus on Dec 25. In the inscription over her temple at Sais you read "The fruit I have begotten is the sun" And with Isis, her virginity was self renewed to the point that she could be a perpetual virgin.

After being born in the form of a helpless child the Sun continued to age and take different forms throughout the year until it would be born again on Dec. 25, the winter solstice. This was the turning point where the daylight hours would begin to get longer. What is interesting is that John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin and preparer of the way, was born exactly 6 months, at the summer solstice, before Jesus. The Christian celebration of St. John occurs at this time in which the daylight hours are the longest and would represent the beginning of the stage of the sun in which its hours would be getting shorter. It is interesting to note in John 3:30 (the most gnostic gospel) it states that "He must increase, but I must decrease." in reference to Jesus.

D.M. Murdock continues to show how Sun worship was an essential part of the syncretic mixture of religious myth which created Christianity. And she clearly establishes that Dec. 25 and the celebrations around the birth of the new sun existed thousands of years before Christianity and were unmistakable features of the 1st century consciousness. This was such a problem that early church fathers had to address accusations that Christians were not Sun worshippers. This is understandable considering all the solar and astronomical references to Jesus as the light of the world, the bright and morning star, the victory of light over darkness, and others in the New Testament.

"St. Cyprian spoke of Christ as the true sun (sol verus)." Cyprian also writes, "O, how wonderfully acted Providence than on that day on which that Sun was born...Christ should be born." "St. Ambrose says precisely, 'He is our new sun (Hic sol novus noster).' Similar figures are employed by Gregory of Nazianzus, Zeon of Verona, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, etc." Christ in Egypt page 112-113 Clement of Alexandria calls Christ the "Sun of the Resurrection"

The church father Tertullian (c. 155-230 AD/CE) writes in a rather defensive manner to the charge of worshipping the sun, "...Others, with greater regard to good manners, it must be confessed, suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians, because it is a well-known fact that we pray towards the east, or because we make Sunday a day of festivity. What then? Do you do less than this? Do not many among you, with an affectation of sometimes worshipping the heavenly bodies likewise, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise?" Ad Nationes 1:13 Augustine (354-430 AD/CE) had to refute the same charges even later in Tractates on the Gospel of John.

When we consider the Egyptian winter solstice celebration we find Epiphanius, Plutarch, and Macrobius describing a similar ceremony that further indicates why Pagans would accuse Christians of worshiping the Sun. Macrobius writes in Saturnalia (1:18:10), "...at the winter solstice the sun would seem to be a little child, like that which the Egyptians bring forth from a shrine on an appointed day, since the day is then at its shortest and the god is accordingly shown as a tiny infant." In the case of Epiphanius the passages describing this celebration in Alexandria are deleted in the Migne edition which presents a case of deliberate and egregious censorship. This is because it describes an infant child brought forth as born of a virgin from the lower depths of the shrine of Core, which means virgin. This wooden image of the child sun is carried on a litter and has the sign of the cross inlaid with gold on each hand, both knees, and on the forehead. Gregory Nazianzen (329-389) describes the Greek form of this celebration in which is heard the festal shout, "the virgin has brought forth, the light grows."



This is just the tip of the iceberg. D.M. Murdock has much more information, with references, on the Egyptian origins of Satan, the resurrection, the star in the east, the three kings, the 12 followers, the miracles, the crucifixion, Proto-Christianity formed in Alexandria, and many others. This book will take a while to get through, and opens up so many more questions and avenues to explore than I ever thought possible. With this book, it is going to be far more difficult to deny the pagan origins of Christianity. It is going to be far more difficult to claim that Christianity is "The Truth."

That being said, it does open up many of the sayings ascribed to Jesus. These sayings can be applied in a much broader context and allows them to reveal many of their original intents within the mystery religions of the 1st century. These Bible sayings and stories are an integral part of the Western mind. Having the freedom to look at these stories as myths places them within our consciousness in a way that allows them to speak out from under the subconscious threats of death and condemnation. No longer does fundamental Christianity have a hold on these truths that are rather lifeless and frightening when applied in reference to beliefs in an eternal hell and the obsessive need to have Jesus become everyone's "personal savior."

D.M. Murdock obviously put a lot of work and research into this book. It is well worth reading and reveals insights into what is the true origin of Christianity. This information should have been available to the general public long ago. It is understandable why this hasn't been presented before because for many centuries any criticism of the "truth" of Christianity would be met by death, loss of the ability to make an income, and other social pressures. I have also learned to appreciate the finer points of the Egyptian religion. It is no longer this dark and scary entry into the land of mummies and monsters born of curses and superstition. It is a very sophisticated philosophy of light and darkness, good and evil, and the purification of the soul.

I highly recommend this book and encourage you to read it slowly and thoughtfully, taking time to place yourself back in time with D.M. Murdock when humanity saw things much differently.

The "Ring of Truth?"

In the last few weeks I have been having a conversation with a number of Christian apologists about the basis of Christian belief in the Divine inspiration of the Bible. This conversation has mainly been about the way in which the Bible was put together and the influences on this process. When we look at the history of this process we find violence, bribery, torture, and political maneuvering. It is very difficult to find anything spiritual within this history.

When the evidence is finally sifted through the “faith” appeal usually is the final appeal for believers. Basically it means that we need to have “faith” in those things that can’t be defended through reason. An interesting application of this “faith” approach is by quoting J. B. Phillips. He used the term “ring of truth” to refer to the Divine nature of the Bible. He noted, as he was translating the Bible, he felt a general “ring of truth” unique to the Bible as compared to his work translating other ancient documents. To be fair to J. B. Phillips, he didn’t believe in verbal inspiration, that Satan was real, nor in many of the “miracles” of Jesus. He would relegate them to either parables, alternate explanations, or myths.

In his autobiography he stated, “...I felt bound to abandon the `God-dictated-every-word- from-cover-to-cover' attitude, and won an attitude which commends itself to my intelligence as well as my faith..." (The Price of Success, Wheaton: Harold Shaw Pub., 1984, p. 150).

I want to look at, more specifically, the gospels. I think if there is a "ring of truth" around the gospels, its because of the profound wisdom of some of the teachings of Jesus. This does not mean that Jesus is divine or is the only source of true wisdom. Much like J. B. Phillips, I don't find a "ring of truth" around the historical account because it appears that there are accommodations for later orthodox beliefs and for several doctrinal problems encountered in the first few centuries of Christianity.

There are some contributions that Jesus makes that, I believe, go unrecognized because of all the emphasis on his death as a sacrifice, the claim of his divine nature, and the need for salvation, which I have come to believe have their source in the strong Greek, Pagan, and Roman influences on the early Christian church.

I would also note that many of us, who grew up in Christian cultures, are working under a fair amount of conditioning in regards to Christianity. And that conditioning has a fair amount of fear involved. This "faith based" reasoning has its counter parts in other traditions that most Christians would find unbelievable. One simply has to note the strong hold the Qur'an has on most Muslims as the final revelation of God or the Book of Morman as a historical record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas.

Christians dismiss the mythology of the Qur'an and the Book of Morman for reasons they are unwilling to apply to the Bible because they have "faith." When I look at what is typical of most religious beliefs systems I find the same types of myth building within Christianity. These are powerful cultural influences that are linked very deeply to a person's view of the world. They are not easy to change because they have such a strong momentum.

When I step back from my cultural momentum and view Christian history and belief from a rational perspective, I find the same problems as I find in other belief systems and if I am going to retain an intellectually honest perspective, I need to apply the same types of tests to all belief systems no matter how painful that process may be, because, ultimately, I have found that, as Jesus said, the truth does set one free.

And this brings me back to what may provide a “ring of truth” to the gospel account of Jesus and his teachings. There are a number of themes that Jesus addresses, but the one that is often the most recognizable is his statement that we love our neighbor as our self. This statement is not unique to Jesus since we find the same statement in the Torah. And this is not simply some wise saying, but it is one of the two statements that define the law of God in Jewish belief. The first one being the requirement to love God with all your heart.

In the Torah the statement reads like this

“You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.” Leviticus 19:18 NKJ

In this context the idea of one’s neighbor is only within the children of one’s own people. What Jesus adds, through the story of the Good Samaritan, is the idea of one’s neighbor extends far beyond one’s own people. We empathize with the poor man beaten by robbers, abandoned by his countrymen and feel his relief at being taken care of by the Samaritan, who is considered an outcast. And when Jesus asks us who was this beaten man’s neighbor, we feel the injustice of excluding the kind Samaritan from our love simply because he is a Samaritan.

I think this is the key concept that Jesus brings to us. He takes an ethical principle (love your neighbor as yourself) that is based on empathy and uses that empathy to extend this principle to all people. He further links this idea to empathy when he states “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” This is quoted in both Luke 6:31 and in Matthew 7:12.

This idea of empathy, rather than authority, as the basis of ethical behavior puts a lot of confidence in the human heart. It puts confidence in the human capacity to imagine how it might feel to be in another’s place and experience. It also puts a lot of confidence in the ability of one to love one’s self. For me, love for one’s self is the ability to imagine how it might feel to see one’s self from another’s perspective of grace.

This idea, to be fully realized, requires elements of both eastern and western thought. Eastern religious practice has made an art form of the exploration of the inner self. Its practices have the ability to awaken the capabilities of the heart and the capabilities of awareness. Western religious practice has emphasized much of the practical application of belief. Empathy, to be fully developed needs a rich and full inner life and a clear awareness of the world around. Empathy, to be fully applied, needs to know how to turn the gifts of the inner life into connections with others.

Eastern practice tries to avoid dualistic types of thinking to find the middle path. In Western terms this would be a form of Grace, where one gives up the need to punish and refrains from judging. All of these were explored by Jesus within the context of Jewish law. Jesus stated that to judge others was to judge oneself and to be free from judgment one had to refrain from judging others. He was also very practical in his application of love. He references acts of kindness and love as the determining factor of one’s inner life. Acts of kindness done to others was doing them to God. This may have indicated how Jesus saw connections between all and the spirit of God within.

Paul, who claimed to be an apostle, said “Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.” 1st Corinthians 10:24 This is a major shift in ethical emphasis. I believe this created a competition for goodness within Christianity. If one takes away the love for one’s self, empathy is taken away as well. For I no longer have a self to reference other’s feelings. And if I don’t seek my own good at all, then my ability to sustain my own life will take my gifts away from others eventually and in the mean time reduce their effectiveness.

With the introduction of Jesus becoming a sacrifice for our sins, we no longer have a self sustaining philosophy of empathy, but a sacrificing god who we are now required to emulate. The focus is taken off our connection with others through empathy. It is now focused on how much we can sacrifice. The suffering of Jesus and its contemplation holds front and center rather than love for our fellow beings. Ultimately this becomes a practice of self contemplation. The contemplation of one’s worthiness or unworthiness as it may be.

If we can tease one more thing from Jesus, we might contemplate the possible intent of this statement.

'I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink'...Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink?...'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.' Matthew 25:35, 37, 40

If we see Jesus as human, then we could say that any kindness or harm we do is done to everyone. If we see Jesus as Divine, we could say that the Divine dwells in everyone. If we see him as both we could say that everyone is a member of the family and everyone is Divine. I’m sure there are infinite variations of how we might see the nature of humans and Jesus.

What I have observed within communities that I have participated in is that when a person is allowed to tell their story from their heart and is really heard within that community a bond develops and actions naturally come forth. It is clear that when these empathetic connections are established there is a natural desire and motivation to love one another. It comes from the stories of people’s lives told in honest and nonjudgmental ways. And it doesn’t matter what people believe or don’t believe in these moments. That empathetic connection communicates much more than ideals, doctrines, words, philosophies, theologies, or ethics could ever instruct.

So if there is a “ring of truth” in the gospels, for me, it is introduction of empathy as the basis for the expression of love toward each other. May we learn how to more fully feel and express our empathy. I think it would be a far better world if everyone knew how to do this well.

The Devil made me do it

Flip Wilson while playing the character Geraldine and money laundering Reverend Leroy often used the phrase, "The Devil made me do it." as justification of various choices that were made by his characters. His catch phrase "What you see is what you get" was used to describe the new word processors that displayed text formatting exactly as it would appear on paper as opposed to early word processors that used formatting commands. This latter phrase is about a certain truth based on what one sees and the former is about a certain lie based on a fear of being held responsible.

When one reads the various debates about God's existence there is a decided lack of dialog about whether or not the Devil exists. On the one side God is the origin of all that is good and God's motivation is Love. On the other, the Devil is the origin of all that is evil and the Devil's motivation is rather unclear. Some say its jealousy and others say that hate motivates the Devil or others say it is power and control. The story goes that Satan was called Lucifer or light bearer and was the brightest and most powerful of all the angels God created. One wonders how brilliant this angel could be if death and destruction was all that he could come up with.

There’s an ancient myth that says, “If you have the name of the demon you have power over the demon and, if asked, the demon has to give you its name.”

I don’t believe in the idea of evil, but I do believe there are lies and fear. And, in religious terms, the counter points of lies and fear are truth and faith.

I read in the book The Zen Teachings of Jesus by Kenneth S. Leong that in the ancient language of Aramaic there is no word for evil. The word translated as evil is really the word for immature. Tradition has said that Jesus spoke Aramaic and I have done an interesting experiment by reading sayings where Jesus uses the word evil and substituting the word immature.

It creates a whole different feel to many of Jesus’ statements. The ideas presented take on a directive to see the world as one who is becoming mature rather than a directive to be “good.” Rather than condemnation, by labeling someone or something as evil, it becomes an observation that immaturity is the cause of a lot of suffering.

Evil is this mysterious irrational force that has only wants to destroy for no reason. I believe that to be a lie. I don’t believe that evil exists, only ignorance, lies, and fear. Evil is a lie that allows demons to hide and remain nameless, but fear and deception are names we can understand. They are things we can overcome once we name them.

And too often, when someone labels something as evil, we fail to ask the demon its name.

Its my religion, I can cry if I want to.

Zach Johnson said something in his interview after winning the Masters that got the attention of the Christian Blogging commuity. At Think Christian there is some dialog about how Zach Johnson briefly mentioned his Christian faith. They were referring to the blog called Redeeming Prufrock where Ben Humphries suggests that when Zach Johnson said "I was not alone out there. Jesus was with me every step of the way." that CBS cut him off and did not ask any more follow up questions. He also noted that "His voice broke, and he cried."

You can see the actual interview here and a longer interview at his Jacket presentation here. You can judge for yourself if CBS cut him off or discounted his expressions about his faith. And a more humerous look at Zach Johnson reading the top 10 things I can say now that I have won the masters list on the Letterman Show


What I really wanted to look at is the emotions that bring about tears. Tears are often associated with deep spiritual experiences or transformations. There are tears of sorrow, tears of relief and tears of joy. There are probably all kinds of connections with tears.

When I was younger there seemed to always be this question when we had Bible quiz competitions or Bible baseball games at church school. The question was, "What is the shortest verse in the Bible?" The answer generally given is John 11:35 in which the verse says, "Jesus wept." (On a side note Job 3:2 is technically shorter in English and says, "He said,") This verse is associated with the story of the raising of Lazarus from the dead.

In this story Jesus is sent word that Lazarus is sick and asked if He would come quickly to heal him. The message said, "Lord, the one you love is sick." The narrative says that instead of going right away, Jesus stayed where he was for 2 more days before traveling to where his friends were. When He arrived Lazarus had been dead for 4 days and eventually Lazarus' sister Mary came to meet him and she was weeping. When Jesus saw this, He was deeply moved in His spirit. It is at this point that "Jesus wept."

Now, there are all kinds of theological reflections on this point and why Jesus was weeping. In some he was weeping because of their lack of faith and they didn't understand that He had the power to raise the dead. In some this proved that Jesus was a man with bodily functions. In others He is weeping for Lazarus because he has to come back from Paradise.

While there is no way to prove if this story actually happened there are a number of things to draw from this narrative. It certainly addresses the fear and loss that come from death. What hits me on a more personal level is that from the book of John its clear that Jesus knows that he is going to raise Lazarus from the dead. He doesn't seem to be in a hurry to point this out when He arrives. In fact, He takes time to weep with Mary and the others with her. The author of the book of John seems anxious to point out the lack of faith on the part of the Jews who were there.

And yet it seems that it was important for Jesus to weep with Mary, even though He knows that He will bring back her brother to her in a few moments. Maybe there is something to be gained from grief that is important. Maybe weeping is part of what comes before being raised from the dead. Maybe something far more complex and profound happens in that moment that Jesus connects with Mary than all the theological explanations that follow. Its seems clear that Jesus was moved to act, not from a need to explain, but from his connection with Mary and her sorrow.

In this world today, I believe that if we would connect with each others sorrows we would act quite differently. We might be able to raise ourselves and others from the dead.

What is Salvation?

The word salvation comes up in spiritual dialog quite often. What is interesting is we often convert that to saved, as in lifting someone out of the clutches of danger like a superhero would do. The root word in salvation is actually salve, which refers to a healing balm or lotion. In one image we have superman flying down and saving someone from harm, in the other we have someone offering or applying a healing balm to someone else in the pain of disease.

I remember finding Batman far more interesting than Superman. Batman did his "good" deeds in secret and anonymously, where as superman was very public, even though he had his humble side as Clark Kent. Batman had wealth and non superhuman athletic abilities that his passion for justice honed and he had his, not so humble, public persona millionaire Bruce Wayne. Superman was born both super strong and super good. He was Jesus like, except he was indestructible in a physical sense, but was vulnerable often because of his own "goodness." For example, he would come to save someone even though he knew he might die from exposure to kryptonite.

Each of the hero saviors had their own motivations for saving others. Batman came from loneliness and anger. Superman came from loneliness and empathy. Each isolated by their own "greatness" and by their own pain.

If we look to a salve or healing lotion, there is no hero. If there is a hero, its the salve itself. It takes no super human ability to give someone the healing lotion or to apply it. An individual can't apply salve to hundreds of people at the same time. (After I wrote that last sentence I had this vision of some guy with a fire hose filled with lotion. Somehow I think something would be lost in fire hose balm application.) It is most likely a person to person experience, or its something a person can apply to themselves after being given it. It is not an isolating experience, its a process that requires at least two people to be involved. In fact the healing might not be in the balm alone, but may require someone to touch.

Gratitude

I was reading Thich Nhat Hanh's book "Living Buddha, Living Christ" when I came across this short story...

"During a conference on religion and peace, a Protestant minister came up to me toward the end of one of our meals together and said, 'Are you a grateful person?' I was surprised. I was eating slowly, and I thought to myself, Yes, I am a grateful person. The minister continued, 'If you are really grateful, how can you not believe in God? God has created everything we enjoy, including the food we eat. Since you do not believe in God, you are not grateful for anything.' I thought to myself, I feel extremely grateful for everything. Every time I touch food, whenever I see a flower, when I breathe fresh air, I always feel grateful. Why would he say that I am not?"

This reminded me of the trick questions the lawyers would ask Jesus. For example when Jesus was teaching that we should love our neighbor as ourselves, He was asked who is our neighbor by an expert in the law. Jesus "answered" with the story of the good Samaritan who aided the beaten traveler when the Levite and the Priest passed him by while he lay on the road, followed by the question, "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

For those of you who aren't familiar with the story, the Samaritan was not to be associated with and was seen as an "undesirable." To consider a Samaritan as one's neighbor would be unthinkable. This story has always brought a smile to my face when I imagined the expert in the law trying to figure out how to answer Jesus. What's interesting is that his answer never said the word Samaritan. The lawyer answered, "The one who had mercy on him." Kind of an early example of spin.

Thich Nhat Hanh doesn't have a clever story, but reveals his source of gratitude in a very beautiful way.

"Contemplating our food before eating in mindfulness can be a real source of happiness. Every time I hold a bowl of rice, I know how fortunate I am. I know that forty thousand children die every day because of the lack of food and that many people are lonely, without friends or family. I visualize them and feel deep compassion."

My own gratitude has come from knowing the suffering of loneliness. When I remember what it was like to be alone, I find great joy and gratitude to be with my wife and sons. When I am able to be a part of another's healing process and I observe the suffering they have gone through, I am grateful for the ease of my pathway compared to what they have gone through.

My guess is that when Jesus told the expert in the law to "go and do likewise," it wasn't only for the benefit of those he might help, but it may have been more for the lawyer himself. For, the gift of gratitude is happiness.

What is Christian spirituality?

Being in a post Christian world doesn't mean that the influence of Christian thought has gone away. In some ways Christianity has become viewed as a religion presenting the two main messages of anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality. I have gotten letters in the mail asking for money to stop the evil liberal agenda from degrading the morals of our young people with quotes from various educators, lawmakers, politicians, and women's rights advocates placed out of context followed by exaggerated commentary. It has all the earmarks of a scam. I have long suspected that as long as these various organizations keep inflaming polarizing issues, they will continue to have the means to raise a lot of money.

I have observed rallies to save the unborn by groups of Christian youth standing sheepishly at a major intersection weakly waving signs that seem rather more vitriolic than their posture. It reminds me of when I was "encouraged" to go door to door handing out tracks warning that Jesus was coming soon, come to these meetings, and you will avoid God's wrath in the form of the Mark of the Beast. It was not uncommon to get angry stares from people while walking through the neighborhood. We were informed that this was persecution and God was well pleased with our dedication to his cause. We would sing songs like, "Onward Christian Soldiers," or "Bringing in the Sheaves." It was very hard to feel spiritual. I felt more embarrassed and afraid. And yet we were told that this was the highest form of spirituality and a true Christian would not be afraid.

There was something painful about watching these Christian youth hanging out there. Even though I didn't really agree with the method, I could empathize with their predicament. Every once in a while someone would yell out something after which the adult member of the group would yell back some catch phrase. When a car had to stop and wait for a right turn, right in front of them, there was this awkward moment where the group sensed that big sign waving was a little too theatrical for someone 2 feet away.

I wondered if they felt more spiritual or more connected to God after waving angry signs.