Introduction to 1 John

Hello,

I've decided to focus on 1st John next, because I've already gone through 2nd and 3rd John. As a reminder, I'm using an NIV study bible and doing a plain reading of the text. If a god wanted everyone to understand the bible as his word, it should be easily interpreted by the common person, right? I do a lot of paraphrasing, but I put direct quotes in quotation marks. All opinions and thoughts are my own, unless stated otherwise. I provide links or name of a reference when I get information from another site. However, no one forms opinions in a vacuum and I have acquired some  personal knowledge to draw on. My style is gently sarcastic at times. If you enjoy reading my posts, please share my site with a friend.

Now let's look at 1 John. The author is traditionally assumed to be the same author of the gospel of John and the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John. There are some similarities and some differences, as noted in the Wikipedia article.  To be clear, no authorship is claimed by name in any of those bible books.

1 John does not begin as a typical letter with an introduction, it leaps right into theology. The author refers to Jesus as "the word of life." He appears to claim he has seen Jesus with his eyes and touched him with his hands, and that he was actually alive, but the language is very poetic and uses the collective pronoun "we," indicating others with him. Neither the author or the others are named. The author is proclaiming what the collective has seen and heard to the readers, so that they can have fellowship with this unknown group. The group's fellowship is with god the father and his son, Jesus.

Next, the author claims to have heard a message from Jesus, and this is it : "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all." Jesus is not recorded as saying that in any of the gospel accounts, nor is that exact phrase found anywhere else in the rest of the bible. The author continues on to say that anyone who "walks in darkness" yet claims to have fellowship with god, is a liar. (He does not say what walking in darkness consists of.) If anyone walks in light with god (again, what does that mean?), those people have fellowship with the mystery group, and the blood of Jesus cleans all the sin off all of them.

They mustn't claim to be without sin. They wouldn't be telling the truth. They just need to confess their sins, then Jesus will forgive them and purify them. If they say they do not sin, they are calling Jesus a liar. Lesson: No Matter what, you won't be believed if you say you haven't sinned. Sin makes you dirty. You can only be made clean if you tell what your sins are. Hmm. What constitutes sin? Who do you confess to?How could that go wrong?

Till next time.

2 Peter wrap up

Time for a review of what we learned from 2nd Peter. It claims to be written by Peter to an unidentified group of believers. It does not claim to be inspired or the word of god. Except by fundamentalists, it is generally considered pseudepigrapha, which is another word for FAKE. (Seriously, folks, call a spade a spade.)

This letter is unique among other NewTestament letters in that the author is obviously familiar with a number of other New Testament writings: At least one of the gospels--he quotes Matthew's version of god's words to those present at Jesus's transfiguration on a mountain; a number of letters attributed to Paul, which he calls scripture; the book of Jude, which he plagiarizes. 2Peter 2:1-3:3 contains most of Jude 4-18 paraphrased and interspersed throughout the text.

The author is familiar with Jewish scriptures. He quotes Proverbs. He speaks of the prophets, and makes excuses for the fact that their interpretation of their own prophecies didn't literally come true. It was because they were not understood properly, being words from god, not man. The author also mentions Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot (who he calls a righteous man), and Balaam and the donkey. He speaks of angels sinning and being sent to Tartarus, which is not part of the Old Testament or New. It appears to be extrabiblical legend that was used to explain parts of the Old Testament.

Technically, there is no gospel preached in this letter.  Jesus's righteousness saves people through faith, not his death. The initial message is "Do these things (like kindness, perseverance, and love) and you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ." The author also claims that the stories of Jesus are not "cleverly invented." One sentence about god saying Jesus is his son, on the mount of transfiguration, is all we are told about the life of Jesus. The author claims to have been present at this event. There is no birth story, no miracles, no teachings, no commands, no crucifixion, no resurrection. There is also no mention of any Christian religious rituals, no mention of any New Testament characters but Paul, no mention of any other New Testament places or events. There are two cryptic mentions of a sacred command but we are not told what it is.

The bulk of the text is about false teachers and their destruction. There are many warnings against destructive heresies, denial of Jesus, made up stories (irony alert), slander of celestial beings, blasphemy, scoffing, etc. The false teachers are thoroughly reviled in as many ways possible, being called all manner of foulness appropriate to the times. Examples are given of types of destruction that god meted out to the ungodly in the past. The readers are assured that all heretics will similarly be paid back. They are told that those who once knew the truth and turned their backs on it would be worse off in the end than if they had never known Jesus. This is clearly cult language.

There is also considerable effort made to assure the reader that "the day of the lord" will come, just not when they expect it. God works in his own time frame. It's taking a while because he wants to save all the people, except the ungodly, who will be burnt up with the heavens and the earth on the day of judgment. But the author and the readers will get to live in a new heaven and new earth, if they make every effort to be found spotless and blameless, and are not seduced by the dark side.

2 Peter part four.

We are in chapter three,  verse ten. We recently read that, even though it seems like god hasn't kept his promise to send Jesus back, we can't assume that he won't because our time and god's time are not on the same scale. God's not being slow, he's being patient, because he doesn't want anyone to perish.. Yeah, right.

That's why, in the very next passage, the reader is told that the day the world ends will be a surprise, in which everything will be burnt to ashes. Since everything will be destroyed, the readers ought to live holy and godly lives as they "look forward to the day of god and speed its coming." Plus, this end won't just be hot, it will melt the very elements in the heavens. But, no worries, the reader can look forward to a new heaven and new earth. All this is reason for the reader to make every effort to be practically perfect in every way. And remember, the longer it takes for Jesus to return, the more people will be saved. Why it might even take over two thousand years.

The author goes on to say Paul wrote about this stuff too. I think this is the only book of the bible not attributed to Paul, besides Acts, which mentions Paul by name. Not only that, it mentions that Paul wrote multiple letters, and that the letters contain "some things that are hard to understand, Which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction." Implication: don't try too hard to understand what Paul wrote, because if you get it wrong, Poof! You're toast.

So, be careful, who you listen too. You are in a precarious situation and could very easily fall "from your secure position" if you follow the wrong person. Just grow in grace (what's grace?) and knowledge and you should be fine. (I hope.) to Jesus be the glory (what's glory?) forever. Amen.


Comforting?

We have finished with 2nd Peter. Next time we will wrap up with our usual summary. Till then.

2 Peter part three

We are at chapter two verse seven. We have read about god's power to destroy the ungodly, which uses language similar to Jude 6 and 7. Now the author tells us god knows how to rescue the godly, like Lot. He says, "Lot was a righteous man who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men." Go back and read the story of Lot in Genesis 19. This is the Lot who offered his daughter to be raped by an angry mob to save the virtue of a couple of angels. This same Lot got filthy stinking drunk and was raped by his own daughters. Lovely story. Not.

The author continues on, talking of arrogant men who are not afraid to slander celestial beings. Good for them. Why should they be afraid? Well, the author says that not even very powerful angels will slander celestial beings in the presence of the lord. Maybe because none of them exist. Or is it because the slanderers are "brute beasts...born only to be caught and destroyed."

The next verses, from 13-22, are pure vitriol. They malign and slander the author's opposition in a particularly nasty way. He calls them blots and blemishes, carousers, adulterers, seducers, unstable, greedy, accursed, wicked, boastful,  and lustful. He also uses some pretty descriptive metaphors like springs without water, mists driven by a storm, slaves to depravity, dogs returning to vomit (Proverbs 26:11 quote), and sows wallowing in mud. Were they actually that bad? What is the other side of the story? Also,  I urge you to read through the book of Jude, which is quite short. So much of this passage is similar to the language found there.

What was the point of all that hatred? It was this, "If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our lord and savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning." This is a subtle threat  to those christians  who would dare to leave the group, dare to say anything against it,  and go back into the world. "Blackest darkness is reserved for them." This is cult language, calculated to make people fear and quake at the mere thought of leaving, questioning,  or complaining.

We have come to chapter three. The author says, "Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you." That is interesting because many scholars don't believe 1st and 2nd Peter were written by the same person. The language, the format, and the subject matter differ. The author of first Peter wrote in a very Jewish way, referring to the Old Testament with quotations. So far, the author of second Peter Has referred to various parts of the old Testament and to Matthew, but he has drawn significant amounts of  text directly from Jude. What's even more interesting, he used all the bits he got from Jude in the order that they appear in that book, interspersed with his own words. According to my study bible he clearly uses, in order, phrases from Jude 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 18. He is a plagiarist.

The author goes on to say he wrote both his letters to "stimulate the reader to wholesome thinking." He wants them to recall the words of the prophets and the command Jesus gave the apostles, but he doesn't say which words and which command. They also need to realize that in the last days scoffers will scoff. (Haters will hate.)They will question the whereabouts of Jesus, as well they should. He supposedly promised he would come back. He hadn't then, and he hasn't yet. The author accuses the scoffers of deliberately forgetting that god's word has the power to create and destroy. Then he explains Jesus's tardy return. "With the lord, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day. The lord is not slow in keeping his promis as some understand slowness." In other words, time means nothing to god, whenever he decides to do something will be the right time.

Till next time.

2 Peter part two

We are at 2 Peter 1:12. The author says he will always remind the reader of the stuff they already know. That seems rather pointless doesn't it? He thinks it is right to keep doing this as long as he is alive, because Jesus has made it clear to him that he hasn't got much time left. But no fear, he will find a way to be responsible for helping them remember, even after he shuffles off this mortal coil. This guy has issues.

He goes on to say that he and his cronies didn't make stuff up when they told about "the power and coming of our lord Jesus Christ." They were "eyewitnesses of his majesty" because they were with Jesus on a sacred mountain when a voice from god said, "This is my beloved son, with him I am well pleased." Well, well, well. This is the story of the transfiguration of Jesus in the presence of Peter, James and John. It is found in Mark 9, Matthew 17, and Luke 9. Mark says god's words are "This is my son, whom I love. listen to him." In Luke it is "This is my son, whom I have chosen. listen to him." In Matthew it is "This is my son, whom I love, with him I am well pleased. Listen to him." Notice that 2 Peter appears to be quoting from the book of Matthew. In all of the instances, god supposedly also commanded those present to listen to Jesus, but the author of 2 Peter did not include those words of god. Will he ever tell us any of the things Jesus is supposed to have said?

The author goes on to say that the readers would also do well to pay attention to the words of the prophets. (What about the words of Jesus?) However, they need to understand that no prophecy of scripture ever came about by the prophets own interpretation. That's funny. He's acknowledging that prophets got the meanings of their prophecies wrong. He says that's because the prophecies didn't come from the will of man, but from god, through the holy spirit. Excuses excuses. So, how in the world can anyone know what the prophecies actually meant, or if they came true, if even the prophets got it wrong?

We are now in chapter two.The author says, "There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign lord who bought them (AKA Jesus)." Okay. Let us recognize that both liars and truth tellers will say that the people disagreeing with them are wrong. These people "spreading heresies" could actually be the truth tellers, but of course the author begs to differ. He says people will follow the heretic's shameful ways and bring the truth into disrepute. They will also exploit the reader with made up stories. Is this projection? I'm pretty sure the story of the transfiguration is made up. The author says the story tellers will get the destruction awaiting them. When we point our finger, three fingers are pointing back at us.

The author goes on to say that after all, "God did not spare the angels when they sinned but sent them to hell, putting them in gloomy dungeons to be held for judgement" He also did not spare the people who were drowned in the flood. Nor did he spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were burnt to ashes, "an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly." These are all proof that sinners will get what is coming to them. A note about the angels who sinned and got sent to hell: there isn't actually any Old Testament scriptures that say this. Also the word "hell" here is translated from the Greek word Tartarus, which is a deep pit located below Hades, the land of the dead. This isn't the "lake of fire" hell that Christianity is fond of.

Till next time.

Edited to add: the bit about angels in prison and  the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah very closely echoes terminology found in Jude 6.

A Grieving Atheist Book Review: The Grief Recovery Handbook.

I've recently finished reading The Grief Recovery Handbook by John James and Russell Friedman. This book is outlines a method for coming to grips with all types of loss in your life, from horrendous death to moving. The title is a little misleading because, as the authors recognize,  we don't always get over major losses but can live with them in a way that they call "completing our emotions." They discuss how we are poorly socialized to deal with loss because most of our culture is concerned with gains. I agree with them that modern therapeutic methods and language are often not very helpful. Every loss and every grief is unique to the individual and can not be reduced to stages or timelines.

As I was reading through the book and finally arrived at the steps to the implementation of the grief recovery method, I felt a sense of familiarity. This book was originally written before Marie Kondo put out her best seller on the Joys of Tidying Up, but it promotes metaphorically similar actions. I realized that this practice of "emotional completeness" was the explanation I had missed when I read Miss Kondo's book.

In a nutshell,  the authors of the grief recovery handbook suggest a method for reviewing your relationship to an idea, a person, a place, or a thing. It is recommended to find a partner to share the exercises with in six sessions. They want you to examine the good and the bad related to the whatever or whomever was lost, then write your thoughts down in an orderly fashion. For the loss of a person, you reminisce, you apologize if needed, you forgive if needed, you make any emotional statements that you might need to get off your chest, and you write a final good bye. This letter is to be read aloud, even if you do not have a partner in the process. It is recommended that the letter be burned afterward.

Basically, the idea is to practice letting things go in a way that gets all the thoughts and feelings off your chest, hopefully once and for all. The reason I said this reminded me of Marie Kondo is she advocates a telling each of your possessions good bye when you decide to get rid of them. You remind yourself how you got it, what joy or sorrow it brought you, and then release it to move on from your life. People tend to make fun of her thinking of things as conscious beings, but I am seeing another side of this. We do develop all kinds of relationships, attachments if you will. There is no condemnation in that. But when we need to let go, or are ready to let go, we need examples of how to do that. This book provides them.

Do I think it is perfect? No. Grief will still remain.. Sorrow still happens, but unresolved emotions have been addressed and dealt with. This can only be helpful, in my opinion. There are two things of note. First, you must be ready and willing to say goodbye, at which point I have not arrived yet. Second, though the authors stress doing the method their way, I think it's perfectly fine to adapt it in a way that works for you.

There is very little talk of faith, even though the authors let you know they are believers. They make a point out of taking faith out of the recovery process. Their method is completely accessible to those without supernatural beliefs.

2 Peter, introduction

Hello, time to move on to the 2nd bible book attributed to Peter. Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about it here. There appears to be very little doubt that this letter is a fake, written between 100-150 CE, by an unknown author who was familiar with Paul's epistles and the so called book of Jude. In fact, it seems to rely heavily in the content of Jude, which we have studied before. This should be interesting.

The letter begins with the author introducing himself as Simon Peter, not just Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ. It is addressed to a nonspecific group of believers.

The author opens by saying that Jesus's divine power has given them everything they need for life and godliness through their knowledge of him. (Then why do they need this letter from Peter?) Through Jesus's divine power, he gave them "great and precious promises" (what were they?)so that they could participate in the divine nature (what is that?) and "escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." So, does this boil down to " Jesus has the power to take away your evil desires?"

In spite of Jesus's awesome power in their lives, the readers must still make an effort to have faith, goodness, self control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love. (What does the divine power do?) If the readers have these qualities in increasing measure, it will keep them from being ineffective and unproductive in their knowledge of christ. (Again, then what does the divine power actually do that a person can't do for himself?) if anyone does not have the aforementioned qualities, the author says they are nearsighted, blind, and have forgotten they were cleansed from their sins. I guess he's implying that they owe Jesus their good behavior and good attitudes in repayment for the invisible nullification of their sins.

So, a claim is made that Jesus did something for them that they can not see, and gave something to them that they may never experience. Now it's up to them to be sure they act like they deserve it. And if they do, they will "receive a rich welcome into the eternal (invisible) kingdom of Jesus Christ." After they are dead.

Till next time.

1 Peter wrap up

What did we learn when we read 1 Peter? The author identifies himself as Peter at the beginning and mentions two traditional companions of Peter at the end, Silas and Mark. However, he never mentions anything Peter did or said in the gospel stories, Acts, or Paul's writings. He only says he was a witness to Christ's suffering. It is unclear to me if that is supposed to be literal or metaphorical.

No other New Testament people are mentioned, except Jesus. The author does not claim to be writing the words of god or to be inspired. At the end, it is implied that Silas did the actual physical writing and Peter dictated. The letter claims to be written to Believers in the region of Anatolia/ modern Turkey. This letter actually calls believers christians, which no other other New Testament writer did, except the author of Acts.  A phrase at the end of the letter implies it is coming from Rome, but does not directly say that. No other New Testament places are mentioned.

There are no New Testament events mentioned except the crucifixion of Christ. The only Old Testament event mentioned is the story of Noah's flood. Besides Noah, only Abraham and Sarah are mentioned. Several Old Testament scriptures are quoted, sometimes differently than what is found in my Old Testament, and often out of context, as usual.

The author does not seem to be promoting any departure or separation from Judaism. It is clear that he assumes his readers are familiar with Jewish scriptures, which makes them exiled Jews or Gentile followers of Yahweh. It could be a combination of both.

There are no deeds, words, or teachings, of Jesus recorded in this letter. I find that particularly strange from someone who was supposedly his constant companion for one to three years. There are no mentions of any Christian rituals besides baptism, which many people forget was a Jewish ritual before it became a christian one. Angels and the Devil are mentioned. Heaven is waiting.

Unique to this book is the teaching that after Jesus was crucified, he went to the realm of the dead and preached the gospel to the souls that had been imprisoned there since the flood. It has supposedly already happened, not something that will happen in the future as some groups teach. In this book, Jesus is not the high priest of the heavenly temple, but simultaneously its cornerstone and capstone. He is also a stumbling block to nonbelievers. Believers are living stones in this spiritual house, and a holy priesthood. Biblical authors do not have any qualms about mixing metaphors. Jesus is also called the lamb of god, without blemish, chosen before the creation of the world.

To be fair, positive things like hospitality and love are also taught. Malice, deceit, hypocrisy, and slander are not acceptable. These Christians are urged not to repay evil with evil or insult with insult.

The theme of the book appears to be salvation through submission and obedience to all authority, the ultimate authority being god, of course. The reward for obedience is a "crown of glory that will never fade away."  The reader is told to expect and rejoice in suffering as a christian, especially if it is for doing good. All this suffering is supposed to be for a short time because "the end of all things is near."

Next, we will look at 2 Peter.

1 Peter part eight

We are now at chapter five, the last chapter. The first section directly addresses the elders among the readers. The word for elder here is Presbyterous, which denotes a mature or older man. The author says he is also an elder and a witness of Christ's sufferings. Is that a literal witness or a metaphorical one?

The elders are told to be shepherds and overseers of god's flock under their care, not because they must, but because they are willing, as god wants them to be. In other words, they must. They are not to be greedy for money or lord it over those entrusted to them, but be examples to the flock. Boy, some older men in the church today have missed this verse. Those who do this will receive a crown of glory that will never fade away, after they are dead. Again, what the heck is glory? And who wants an eternal crown as a prize? What Is it good for?

Next, the author addresses young men. They are to be submissive to the older men. All of them are to "clothe themselves with humility toward one another." They do this because of Proverbs 3:34 which, according to the author, says "God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble." However, my old testament says, "He mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble." The new Testament version leaves out the connection between pride and mockery, probably because he would prefer to relate it to disobedience. Of course he also relates it all back to submission to god. They are also to cast all their anxiety on god "because he cares for them." And what good does that do?

The readers are also told to "be self controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." And what proof is there of this? None. It is meant to provoke fear in the hearts of the readers. They are told to resist the devil by standing firm in the faith, of course. Why? Because their brothers throughout the world are also suffering. This is like telling a child to eat all his food because children are starving in Africa. But it's okay, because after they suffer for a little while (their whole life) Christ will restore himself to them and make them firm and steadfast. Big whoop.

The letter ends with the author saying he had Silas's help writing this letter. How do we know if Silas wrote what he was supposed to? The author trusted him, but why should we? Silas is associated with Paul in much of the book of Acts. The author may have included the name as a nod to that, as an attempt at proof of authenticity.

There is also a reference to "she who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, which in general Christianese is thought to mean the church in Rome, where Peter was possibly writing from. They and "My son Mark" greet the readers with a kiss of love. Christian tradition associates Mark, the supposed author of the book of Mark with Peter, and it is believed this is the same Mark. All this is without any evidence.

A Grieving Atheist Book Review: Modern Loss

I'm currently reading Modern Loss, a compilation of essays from the Modern Loss blog, by Rebecca Soffer and  Gabrielle Birkner. The subtitle is Candid Conversations About Grief, Beginners Welcome. Each essay is about 4 pages long and written by someone who has experienced the death of someone who was part of their life.

All kinds of death are represented, and all kinds of lives. Each author brings a unique perspective to the grief process, triggers, things to know, inheritance, identity, collateral damage, secrets, griefspeak, etc. There is some humor, and a lot of sorrow that people are dealing with on a day to day basis, in their own way. Grief is very personal and often very complicated. I find it very helpful to read about other's personal experiences. It is like group therapy without leaving your home and dealing with other people.

I'm looking forward to the rest of the book which has sections on Journeys, Shit people say but really shouldn't, and absence + time. I highly recommend Modern Loss for any grieving adult. Also, it has been entirely religion free so far. I haven't checked out the blog yet, but  don't let that stop you.

1 Peter part seven

We are now at 1 Peter 4:3 and have just read that suffering people are "done with sin" and now live for the will of god. We know that is not quite accurate, to say the least. The author says that the readers used to live in a "flood of dissipation, " just like the  pagans. (Do you think flood here is an oblique reference to the genesis flood?) Those pagans are now heaping abuse on the believers because they will no longer join in their carousing and orgies. Not to worry, they will get what is coming to them from the judge of the living and the dead. That's why Jesus went and preached the gospel (which hasn't been defined in this book) to the dead, because god is going to judge them.

Look out! The end is near! Keep a clear mind, so you can pray. "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers a multitude of sins." Well then. If love covers sins, then why isn't that the be all and end all of Christianity. Why is baptism necessary? Why is authoritarianism necessary? Why can't god's love just cover all the sins? Why can't our love for other people cover their sins?

What is love any way in this context? It appears to consist of hospitality, serving others, and "administering god's grace in its various forms." Grace again. Also, anyone who speaks should speak as though they are saying the words of god. That's quite a proposition. How does one speak as though they are god? If anyone serves, they should do it with the strength god provides, which happens to be the same strength nature provides. Because of this, in some unfathomable way, god will be mysteriously come to be praised. To prove that, the author ends this passage praising god. Amen.

The next verse (4:12) is almost like the start of another letter and begins with "dear friends." The reader is not to be surprised at the painful trial they are suffering. It is not strange, under the circumstances. Instead they should rejoice that they get to participate in suffering like Jesus. That means they will be overjoyed when his "glory" is revealed. I feel sorry for the readers. Their suffering never amounted to anything, no joy or glory. Nevertheless, the author tells them they are blessed to be insulted for christ.

If they are going to suffer, it should not be as murderers, thieves, criminals, or even meddlers. (Meddlers...that's a weird addition.) Those things are shameful, but suffering as a christian is praiseworthy. Judgement begins with the family of god. And if it begins with them, what will be the outcome of those who do not obey. If they think they've got it bad, just think of what's waiting for the nonbelievers.

The author supposedly quotes Proverbs 11:31, "If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly sinner?" Except this is what Proverb 11:31 actually says, " If the righteous receive their due on earth, how much more the ungodly sinner." Clearly there are two very different implications. One suggests eternal reward and punishment the other is obviously earthly. Woe to him who not only quote mines but changes the text to suit his own purposes!

So, "those who suffer according according  to god's will (because all suffering is god's will) should commit themselves to their faithful creator and continue to good." Suffering appears to be their lot in life, no matter what.

Till next time.

A Grieving Atheist Book Review: Grief is the Thing With Feathers

I picked up Grief is the Thing With Feathers, by Max Porter, because it was at my local library under the search word "grief." There might be spoilers in this review.

The book is part poetry, part prose, part stream of consciousness, part sarcasm. It is easy to read in one sitting. There are three voices: the grieving husband and father who lost his wife in an accident, their two sons, and Crow.

Crow is a large black bird who suddenly enters the life of the father and sons when grief hits full force. Crow is grief counselor, friend, antagonist, observer of life, and reminder of death, all in one. He insinuates himself into the household as a guest that is barely tolerated and sometimes ignored. He is raucous, rude, and nonsensical, but sometimes wise and witty. He loves rhyming and alliteration.

At the end, Crow is revealed as tender and understanding. He has somehow held the family together and brought them through the worst. His job was to remain as long as hope was absent. He eventually leaves them to their new lives that they have eventually managed to create out of the destruction of the old. However, they do not forget him, but retain a lifelong affinity for crows.

Of course the story is a metaphor for a grief observed. It plays off Emily Dickenson's poem which says "Hope is a thing with feathers." In this case grief has replaced hope, temporarily. I'm sure story is meant to be a message of hope, at the same time understanding that grief comes to live with you for  a while and insinuates itself into everything.

The father in the story is a Ted Hughes expert and is writing a scholarly essay on Mr. Hughes work called Crow, which Mr. Hughes wrote after the death of his wife Sylvia Plath. I believe it would be promote better understanding of imagery used if one was to read Mr. Hughes work, but I haven't done that yet.

Of course I cried in a couple of spots, but the father's situation was different enough from my own for me to not be triggered too much. Weirdly, I'm finding that looking at the grief of others is helping me to see my own more clearly. This was a line from the book that spoke to me: "Moving on, as a concept, is for stupid people, because any sensible person knows grief is a long-term project."

1 Peter part six

We are at 1 Peter 3:19. We have last read that the christ was put to death in the body but made alive by the spirit. Now the author is saying that through that spirit (whatever that is) the christ  "went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when god waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built."

Let's unpack that. The author is referring to the Genesis flood story. It appears that he believes god was patient with the supposedly disobedient people who died in the flood. He gave them time to be obedient while Noah was building the ark. We all know what happened. In the Noah story, the people did not change their wicked ways and they were all drowned, except Noah and his family. The author refers to these drowned people as spirits in prison. What does he mean? It is likely that he is referring to Sheol or Hades, the shadowy underworld place where all the dead go in the ancient Jewish and Greek mythologies. In the Old Testament, death is synonymous with Sheol. It is a place from which there is no escape, a prison if you will. The author of 1 Peter is telling us Jesus went and preached to the dead, after he died. So, he went to Sheol just like everyone else, but there is a difference that the author will reveal to us eventually.

We go on to read about Noah and the ark and how only eight people were saved through water. (And supposedly the rest of the people on earth died through the same water) Now, this water that saved those few people (though technically it was a boat that saved them) symbolizes baptism that now saves them, the readers. Again, generic water, which once floated a boat and drowned everything else in an ancient story, now symbolizes baptism which saves believers. Saves them from what? Why from the wrath of god that gets dispensed on the disobedient, of course! Though the author doesn't tell us that specifically, it is easy to infer,  just by the nature of the story.

Now the author wants the reader to know that baptism isn't the literal washing of dirt from the body, "but the pledge of a good conscience toward god. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus." So the symbolic power of baptism exists because Jesus was resurrected. He didn't stay in the land of the dead. We are not told if this is a resurrection of the body or just the spirit.  We are told that Jesus "has gone into heaven and is at god's right hand-- with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him."

This whole story of Jesus dying and going to preach to the "spirits in prison" is part of the christian doctrine of the harrowing of Hell. Not all christian groups teach this. Not all christian groups teach that believers are saved by baptism. Some latch on to the word "symbolic" and say it is not the act of baptism that matters but the previously mentioned "pledge of a good conscience toward god." These seem to be important teachings, if they pertain to salvation. Why don't all christians agree?

On to chapter four. Since christ suffered in his body, the reader is to have the same attitude. What attitude is that, the attitude of suffering? Apparently, "one who has sufferred in his body is done with sin. As a result, he does not live the rest of his life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of god." I'm not so sure about that. Plenty of suffering people do evil things and have human desires, sometimes because they are suffering. It is also in direct contradiction of buddhist teaching which says that suffering is caused in part by human desires. Suffering is supposedly alleviated by ritual practices of the mind and body that have the side efect of  helping us to live more comfortably with our humanity. I don't know how well it works, but it at least sounds more appealing.

Till next time.

A Grieving Atheist Book Review: A Monk's Guide to a Clean House and a Clean Mind

I recently checked out A Monk's Guide to a Clean House and a Clean Mind by Shoukei Matsumoto. I didn't expect it to have anything to say to help me with my grief, but as is the way with minds, we connect what we are reading to our current self. On the first page of this little book, I read these words, "We don't do this (ritual cleaning) because it's dirty or messy. We do it to eliminate suffering in our hearts."

The monk goes on to tell us that cleaning and clean spaces "serve to calm the mind." The repetitive rituals of cleaning are time for contemplation and learning to focus fully in the moment, a kind of meditation, if you will. 

The book carefully outlines how monks clean each living space, themselves, and their possessions. Much of it seems overly obvious and simplistic. However, each aspect of cleanliness is metaphorically equated with the state of one's heart and cultivation of one's mind. The monk appears to be very serious about the meaning and purpose of cleanliness, but I think it would be a mistake to take his spiritual sounding metaphors too seriously, as some reviewers do. 

I can see how treating cleaning as a meditation exercise could help to calm anxieties and refocus the mind, which I need help with right now. Plus there are chores I have been putting off as a result off my grief. A change in attitude toward the work may help me get to them sooner and accomplish them with more ease of mind. I hope.

1 Peter part five

We are at 1 Peter 3:7. The author has just finished expounding on how slaves should obey their masters and wives should submit to their husbands, even the bad ones. Now we arrive at the message to husbands. Husbands are not told to submit but to be considerate and respectful to the wives as weaker partners and co-heirs of "the gracious gift of life." Is that earthly life or eternal life? Why should husbands treat their wives well? So it won't hinder their prayers!

Finally, says the author, they should all live in harmony, with love compassion and humbleness. Sounds okay. They should also not "repay evil with evil, or insult with insult." That's okay too. What should they do instead? Blessings for everyone! They bless other people so they can inherit a blessing. That would be lovely, if a blessing was actually a thing and not just magical mumbling.

In order to convince the readers to be good to everyone, the author quotes Psalm 34:12-16, "Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech. He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the lord is against those who do evil." This is pretty much what the Psalm actually says. So, be a good person and god will hear your prayers. If you aren't, he won't. A simple carrot and stick philosophy.

Next, the author asks, "Who is going to harm you if you do good?" Boy, he is naive, isn't he? However, he says, "even if you suffer for what is right, you are blessed." Blessed. That lovely word that doesn't mean a whole lot but sounds like you won a prize. The readers are next told not to fear what "they" fear. Presumably the "they" is those who do evil. Instead, the readers are to set apart Christ as lord in their hearts. If  Jesus lives in their hearts, whatever that means in reality, it will provide them with something. Sort of?

The reader is always to be ready to tell people who ask the reasons for their strange beliefs, but they must be gentle and respectful, so no one can say anything mean about them. No fire and brimstone the first time they bring it up. Also, if no one asks, do they need to tell? The slanderers of  good christians should be ashamed of themselves. Anyway, "it's better, if it is god's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil." Really? Does it feel any different? I can see saying that it is better to do good than to do evil, but suffering is suffering. None of it is good. Why would it be god's will for any people, good or evil,  to suffer?

Because...Christ suffered. He was righteous, and he died to bring them, the unrighteous, to god. "He was put to death in the body but made alive by the spirit." In what sense was he actually alive? What does being alive by the spirit entail? Is it real life, or Memorex?

We will stop there because the next section is going to need its own separate post. Till next time.

A Grieving Atheist Book Review: Zen without Zen Masters

Hello, I have briefly mentioned that there has been a terrible tragedy and I have lost someone very near and dear to me about two months ago. My heart is not just broken, it is shattered. I have been trying to navigate daily life through my intense grief, just managing to hold on to my sanity. I apologize for not giving details, but I don't think that is necessary, nor will it serve any purpose to examine the circumstances of the death. It wouldn't change anything. They are still dead. No reiteration of the past can change that.

 I am still having crying jags and emotional meltdowns. I've seen a grief counselor twice. She was not very helpful, but I don't blame her, what can she do. What is done can't be undone, what is shattered cannot be fixed, the dead cannot be brought back to life. I was a little frustrated at the counselor though. Both sessions, she asked me about my loved one and if I could feel their presence, what I thought had happened to their essence, and if I was receiving messages from them. I thought this was inappropriate. She was under the impression that I was a "spiritual" person. I had to tell her I was not religious and she said that would make it harder for me to recover. She also attempted to question why I was not a believer.

Does it make it harder to grieve as an atheist, or just different? Is it even different at all? Does the severity of grief depend on the closeness of the relationship more than religious beliefs? What about the personalities, strengths, weaknesses, and life experiences of the griever? What about the circumstances surrounding the death? Does religion help when the death was sudden, unnecessary, and not understandable?

One thing the counselor  got right is that I have had a traumatic shock. Apparently I have also entered a stage of what is known as "complicated grief." That seems so obvious as to almost be insulting. Duh.

I'm reluctant to go back to that counselor, or any counselor for that matter. I have tried multiple methods of distraction, action, and reaction. They might help for a time but they quickly become useless as a means to ease the pain. I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs of any kind. I have very few responsibilities to occupy my time.  I did get a part time job, but it consists of 4-10 hours a week. For now I have decided to do what comes naturally to me and turn to books. Over at the Roll To Disbelieve blog, I asked for book suggestions to deal with grief as an atheist. I received two. The first was Zen without Zen Masters.

I ordered the book and set about reading it by just opening it to a random page. You can do that with this book because each page is self contained. There is an illustration or mini lesson on each page. I had been pre-warned that it was a bit irreverent. I didn't find it insulting, but it was more flippant than what I needed. Also, there was more about sex than I expected, which was not relevant for me. The most helpful part was near the end, describing various meditations and exercises other than the ones popularly thought of when we hear the words. I would like to examine these more. 1. Breathing meditation 2. Moving meditation. 3. Walking meditation 4. Transcendental meditation. 5. Daily exercise (live in the day) 6. Being exercise (become part of a particular cultural experience) 7. Candle exercise 8.Decisive exercise (using CAN achronism to help decide what to do)  Etc.

The book's main message seems to be: Do not take yourself too seriously. Very hard for me right now under the circumstances. However, I do want to explore a buddhist approach to death and grieving. I found help in some Buddhist philosophy as I was deconverting from Christianity. Maybe it will be of some use again. I checked out a book from my library, called The Five Invitations: What Death Can Teach us about Living. I didn't realize at the time that it was also written by a Zen Buddhist. It has already given me much to think about which I will probably discuss later.