Theocracy: The Threat is Real! [Archive] - Soulforce Community Forums

Emproph

05-24-2006, 10:11 PM

The world is destined to be yours...Aren't you coming with?
----------
(I posted part of this at Ex-Gay Watch in response to a comment, just in case you happen upon it. It’s more appropriate in this thread though.)

The problem with the theocratic right is that their ultimate “truth” is based on exclusivity, which is exclusively subjective. ‘My religion is the only correct one,’ ‘my interpretation of my religion is the only correct one,’ etc. It shows up best in the creationism / evolution “debate.”

The truth of science, logic, as in methodological standards or ‘methods of logic,’ is universal and is meant to be applicable by and to everyone. Once the assumption of creation can be seen as being on equal footing with evolution, biology etc., then you’re one significant step closer to undermining the very need for logic in the discovery of truth.

Since they don’t have any truth to dis-cover because they already have it all in the inerrant Bible, they must establish truth in order to "prove" it. Their concept of truth itself is inherently flawed because you could never universally prove exclusivity. Any “ultimate” or “only” truth that is based on exclusivity would by definition exclude at least some from knowing it.

The only way they can prove it is by forcing the outside world around them to conform to their delusions. Once they see everything that they think is "wrong" made illegal, they can say “see, I have been proven right, my outside world reflects what I knew to be true.”

The problem is, even if they were to establish a theocracy, it’s going to be the most insanely radical minority among even them making and enforcing those laws. (As in those who want to bring back public stonings. -I believe Rushdoony ascribes to this.)

That’s why they use junk science, especially when it comes to the gay/ex-gay issue, so as to appear legitimate. “No it’s not just because the Bible says so, I have scientific studies and statistics to back up my claims (even though I don’t believe in science).”

The ends justifies the means is their mantra.

The Intelligent Design “debate” is the most striking example of their tactics and indicative of their motives. If you can get people to debate whether to teach something as science before it’s even been determined to be science, you’ve already redefined intelligence.

I agree with awediot, I don’t think it’ll happen, but they ain’t goin’ down without a fight.

Now had they started this effort with the ID vs evolution “debate,” (before ERA, abortion, gay rights etc.), then we’d probably be screwed.

I think it’s rather telling that they didn’t though, or at least didn't start with it sooner... Intelligence is the ability to recognize the ORDER of importance.

awediot

05-24-2006, 10:27 PM

revtj,
You vastly underestimate what I want, what I do to achieve it and who I think can realistically give it to me. I have always been amazed at the struggle to be accepted by a society that is sick anyway. Big gain that is. At best we will be invited aboard a sinking ship... My focus is upon repairing it so there's something left to climb back on... In all honesty the gay focus is a bit narrow for me.
My theoretical predictions are based on logical observation, growing mindsets and historical patterns that repeat, not assumption, faith or way to rationalize my laziness. The religious Reich are being exaggerated as a distracting enemy that most in this country take as a joke. It is this view that will defeat them, that is also doing so as we speak. Not us.
My passion for justice is toasty and water resistant enough. It is just not always the same as yours.

Emproph

05-25-2006, 05:51 AM

As a very intelligent slogan goes, "Your religion stops where my rights begin." May our karma run over their dogma

suzer1013

05-25-2006, 09:02 AM

I'm with RevTJ on this one. While part of me would like to believe these people are so extreme that they will be taken as a joke, another part of me remembers Nazi Germany, and how people who never thought Hitler could come to power were proven so thoroughly wrong. I've read some articles claiming that Dubya has ties to these people, and from what I've read, there are some of these folks (not many at this point, but enough to concern me) who are placed in fairly high positions in our government. All it will take is another 9/11 -- which is fairly certain to happen at some point -- to put their plans into effect.

I don't mean to sound paranoid. Some of you may think I am and dismiss my concerns. A bit of news that passed quietly in the media at the end of January was that the government has awarded a multi-million dollar contract to a Halliburton (surprise!) subsidiary to build "immigrant detention camps." The "reasoning" for this was "in case there is a large influx of immigrants" for some reason. Hmmmmm. When pressed, officials also said that such "camps" might be used in the event of a national emergency to house people -- like a Hurricane Katrina scenario. Hmmmmm. It doesn't take much for me to equate "immigrant detention camps" with "concentration camp." Call me crazy, but I think this is scary.

The closing of military bases also concerned me, as they would make perfect "detention camps" given the right political climate.

I know, I know -- it all sounds far fetched. But I don't discount that Nazi Germany could happen again. Elect (or fix the voting machines for) the wrong leader, and the Christian Dominionists will have the dominos lined up to fall in just the pattern they want them to.

I could go on and on, but I won't bore you with my conspiracy theories. I don't want to be paranoid about this stuff, but I also don't want to overlook the signs that could lead our country down a dangerous path, either. :(

Susan

revtj

05-25-2006, 09:20 AM

I have to agree with Susan and I know that all reading this thread are equally concerned about achieving the same goal of equality under the law and equal human rights for all people.

I totally understand why some feel the religious Reich are a joke, being used, and will ultimately fail.

But Suzer hits it right on that the whole system is in jeopardy right now because no one is in control (I think it's very apt to call it an intelligence failure!)

One more natural disaster or terrorist attack and we would be distracted and possibly economically drowning. It wouldn't matter if Hillary was president when it happens. The existing laws already on the books set us up to be the scapegoats along with immigrants and probably a few others.

My point is that without equality under the law we are vulnerable, more vulnerable than privileged groups. With the entire nation in such a state of vulnerability, we cannot afford to dismiss fringe lunatics who think God hates gays and they should be executed.

If I'm wrong, only better results will be seen. But if I'm correct then I have to say "WAKE UP!" to all my beloved brothers & sisters who think this is just a little phase America is going through and it's going to be over soon. Anne Frank thought exactly the same thing about Nazism.

So I write this in peace, out of love, in expectation of oppressed people coming together -- not allowing them to divide us & conquer -- to speak out and take the religious Reich's threat seriously. :pray:

keltic63

05-25-2006, 09:29 AM

OK, I'll try to keep from getting all artsy on you, but a few days ago I pm'd this to a friend; art imitates life and all that. This thread reminds me once again that we need to have a scapegoat, and the following lyrics talk about it nicely.

No, of course what really matters
Is the blame,
Somebody to blame.
Fine, if that's the thing you enjoy,
Placing the blame,
If that's the aim,
Give me the blame-

and goes on to say:

You're so nice.
You're not good,
You're not bad,
You're just nice.
I'm not good,
I'm not nice,
I'm just right.
I'm the Witch.
You're the world.

I'm the hitch.
I'm what no one believes,
I'm the Witch.
You're all liars and theives,
Like his father,
Like his son will be, too-
Oh, why bother?
You'll just do what you do.

Let's face it, they're gearing up for a presidential election. Someone has to take the blame for all the problems. Homosexuals and immigrants make good scapegoats.

Daniel

05-25-2006, 10:23 AM

I could go on and on, but I won't bore you with my conspiracy theories. I don't want to be paranoid about this stuff, but I also don't want to overlook the signs that could lead our country down a dangerous path, either.

Attributed to Richard Nixon:

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

I'm with RevTJI've read some articles claiming that Dubya has ties to these people, and from what I've read, there are some of these folks (not many at this point, but enough to concern me) who are placed in fairly high positions in our government.

A bit of news that passed quietly in the media at the end of January was that the government has awarded a multi-million dollar contract to a Halliburton (surprise!) subsidiary to build "immigrant detention camps."

Susan- could you point out where you found this info?

revtj

05-25-2006, 10:44 AM

Keltic!

It's Sondheim! From "Into the Woods," which is like a piece of divine revelation that needs to be added to the canon to me!

The witch's role was played by Bernadette Peters on B'way and that's the recording I have.

I love so much from that show!!!

And the ending : "...And happy ever after...I wish!" :love:

TJ

keltic63

05-25-2006, 11:36 AM

suzer1013

05-25-2006, 11:45 AM

Daniel...

Forgive a quick posting. It's a busy day at work, and my partner and I are getting ready to go away for a long weekend, so I can't expound too much right now. I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but I'm pasting a bunch of links below that discuss the subjects at hand. I gathered these just from a quick Google search. There's certainly more info. out there than what is presented here. To be sure, some of these websites are more biased than others. I try to take everything with a grain of salt, but I also believe there is a basis in truth for the concerns about Christian Nationalism/Dominionism.

I think it was on Salon.com where I read about some of the folks in government who have Dominionist ties. The thing is, these folks are generally NOT going to state outright that they believe in Christian Nationalism, but they often are funded by these extremist groups and their agenda is often kept cloaked. One good example is the former Judge Roy Moore, the Alabama judge whose crusade is is now to get the Ten Commandments in our courthouses. While it's easy to dismiss Moore as a fringe element, he was a judge in our court system, and he's now got a following. And, of course, there's Tom DeLay, who has been linked with Christian Nationalism, and I think there's questions about John Ashcroft, too.

Anyway, again -- I'm no expert. But what I've read gives me enough of an uncomfortable feeling to be concerned about these folks. Unfortunately, they exert their influence in our government -- through lobbying, running for congressional seats (even if they don't get elected, they often get their message out there), funding the campaigns of the most conservative candidates. Their influence may seem minor right now, and I sure hope it stays that way. I'd love to live my life out and be proved wrong about my paranoia regarding this. At times, these folks are laughable, but I'd also hate to ignore them and have them laughing us all the way to the "immigrant detention camps."

I found out about the immigrant detention camps in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, of all places, and there's more commentary you can find if you Google it.

http://buzzflash.com/farrell/06/02/far06003.html

http://www.blogfordemocracy.org/archives/2006/04/internment_camp.html

http://www.peacenowar.net/newpeace/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=1

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0418-27.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelle-goldberg/what-is-christian-nationa_b_20989.html

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

http://www.theocracywatch.org/gov_tom_delay.htm

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/12/a_nation_under_god.html

suzer1013

05-25-2006, 11:50 AM

LOVED Into The Woods, by the way. Got to see it on B'way, but not with Bernadette. :'( I saw Phylicia Rashad, who actually did a pretty good job. I also went to school with Danielle Ferland (who played Little Red Riding Hood) when I was in drama school -- she was a year behind me, and though I didn't know her very well, she seemed very nice. I probably should have kissed up to her to try to meet Stephen Sondheim!

(ok, ok -- no snarky comments about why in the world would a lesbian need to go to drama school! I've heard 'em all! LOL! :lol: )

Susan :D

awediot

05-25-2006, 12:20 PM

HHmmm... I'm all for paranoia and conspiracy theory these days. There is plenty of evidence that this administration did more than take advantage of an opportunity.

If you really think that Nazis and Christians share the same Demonic nature of blood lust, you are too far gone for this post to change anything and you may as well go discuss Queer as Folk. They got you where they want you and you're ahead of your time.

Christianity warns of a "wolf in sheep's clothing" government conquering the planet. This Prophecy would be a great pain in the ass for such a system. What better smokescreen than to hijack the source of the warning itself and make it appear that it was the thing itself? Dominionism is real, but it ain't coming from Christians... We were told the men who will do this are False Prophets and anti-Christs and they will wreak havoc posing as angels of light and claiming to act on God's will specifically in order to destroy Christianity... Sound familiar? Their success blazes on the horizon... Mere Christians are increasingly despised and soon will be blamed for the the very existence of negativity itself... and you worry they will win? :lol: ...I have underestimated the hatred and fear of what passes and poses for Christianity on this board, and overestimated the ability to see through it. The differentiation between Neo-Cons, fundamentals and simple believers is superficial, and the pain some of their poorly chosen words has caused is milked to the fullest...The real enemy remains well covered and we thrive and obsess on being such important targets... Now back to the musicals...

...diggin' the pissed a bit much today...

keltic63

05-25-2006, 12:25 PM

Now back to the musicals...

sorry to relate art and life. I guess it's better to be a pragmatist. :mad:

awediot

05-25-2006, 12:47 PM

Time and a place my friend... any other thoughts?

keltic63

05-25-2006, 12:59 PM

Time and a place my friend... any other thoughts?

bike racks. 3:30

Zerbie

05-25-2006, 12:59 PM

I don't understand. ??:confused:

Awediot - do you think everyone on this board thinks ALL Christians are reconstructionist/Dominionist types in favor of detention camps???? :confused:

We're only talking about those who SAY they are, or whose actions STRONGLY suggest that they are. And if someone is that deeply entrenched in cruelty and viciousness, then IS that person really a Christian?

I can tell you're a bit angry & don't want to anger you further, but I couldn't understand the nature of your complaint. :confused:

suzer1013

05-25-2006, 01:12 PM

Awediot -- Laugh at me if you want to -- you don't have to believe any of it and, as I said, I do try to take it all with a grain of salt.

I do not lump together Christians with Nazis -- I am talking about a specific group of people who claim to be acting for Christianity and the Bible. Call Dominionists, Christian Nationalists, extreme fringe right -- whatever.

If you don't believe it's a threat -- fine, you don't have to. I just think it's an interesting topic, and I think there is reason to be concerned about these groups. You don't have to insult me to get your point across that you think it's a bunch of malarky.

Susan

awediot

05-25-2006, 01:18 PM

bike racks. 3:30

I'll be there big boy. And wear that bad ass drag king outfit.

Zerbie, I rarely see Christianity portrayed positively here, unless it is the watered down, liberally enlightened version that believes we're all perfectly lovable, Heaven bound, above judgment little innocent lumps of chewy godness. Whole books are dissolved and Christ-consciousness is worn proudly in the face of explicit, dire warnings that we will do just that. Huge elements of God's judgment, requirements, and consequences of rejection are off handedly dismissed in the name of knowing what the Bible really was saying and no one ever points it out.

awediot

05-25-2006, 01:23 PM

If I'm wrong, only better results will be seen. But if I'm correct then I have to say "WAKE UP!" to all my beloved brothers & sisters who think this is just a little phase America is going through and it's going to be over soon. Anne Frank thought exactly the same thing about Nazism.

Suzer, the parallel has been made here before. Sorry if my own swept you up with out foundation. The guilt by association rubs off in all sorts of directions after awhile...

keltic63

05-25-2006, 01:33 PM

I'm not sure how the insults add to the discussion. *click*

I tried to respond with humor. I guess I just don't get it.

revtj

05-25-2006, 02:01 PM

Awe,

You lost me, but that's OK...if I am completely wrong in my assessment of theocracy's threat, that would only make me happy and give me more time to focus on important things like works of art like Sondheim's! :rolleyes:

Nonetheless, I stick by my assertion & I hope everyone will check out Susan's links. The fact that so-called christian nationalists are/& have been in high places of government reminds me of the saying, "If you lie with the dogs, you wake up with fleas."

Now that they are there, there's no turning back. The potential damage they can do is not a fantasy. They do not have to win control of the entire government to set up new systems of inequality, oppression & bias. :(

OK, 'nuff said!

tj

awediot

05-25-2006, 02:08 PM

keltic,
You may have hit on why more newbies don't post more. The gentleness and mutual admiration society quality here can tend to quash even respectful disagreements. Important topics often quickly get dropped, ignored, sidetracked or clogged with redundant, masturbatory back patting. The preference to lighten up overwhelms long before the substance of most topics even gets touched on... and the decisive 'spirituality' over mean, old religion is a given and a taboo subject.

I've got a pretty good, weird and irreverent sense of humor, and willingness to make light. But enoughs enough sometimes.

awediot

05-25-2006, 02:18 PM

...so-called Christian

Thank you! That little hyphenated word makes a world of difference that is rarely made clear around here. The assumption of distinction, guaranteed, eludes more than me... Is it Christians, or the so-called, that present the enemy, and do we ourselves bother to make the distinction even in our own head before we pounce? ...I see a heated, overdue thread in the near future.

revtj

05-25-2006, 03:31 PM

Awe,

There are not 2 christians on earth who interpret every word of the bible exactly the same. Interesting, the early church didn't need all 52 books of the canon to live in loving community together as Christ taught them.

I don't claim to separate the sheep from the goats but I do know that Jesus said not everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord..." is a christian. He went on to explain that when we fed the poor, clothed the naked, housed the homeless, etc., and did it unto the 'least of these', we were doing it unto him.

So I do think that a christianity that has a water-tight theological/bible-based dogma but leads to hating our neighbor is worthy of being held suspect as 'not christian, or 'so-called christian.'

As for God's judgement, it is God's not mine OR YOURS. And it is clear that God's judgement will be/is directly related to how we lived in love and charity with our neighbor, including the neighbor we are tempted to reject.

Jesus also made it clear that we would be judged by the same standard with which we judge...so I'm definitely for what you see as liberal, watered-down judgement. :rainbow:

Now, awe, how can I serve you? How can we better live in love & charity together? :confused:

NonLemming

05-25-2006, 04:07 PM

I'm not sure how the insults add to the discussion. *click*

I tried to respond with humor. I guess I just don't get it.

Keltic, glad to know that option is here. How do I *click* such jerks on this site? Difference of opinion is great with me, it's when I learn, but some just take up too much space. Thanks.

awediot

05-25-2006, 04:08 PM

Rev, feel free to abbreviate, but the -diot part is more important some times...
(... agreed. ) It just pains me to see the politicizing of Christianity result in such irreparable, unquestioned damage, and such a willingness to condemn it lock, stock and barrel... And its only just beginning...

As for God's judgment, it is God's not mine OR YOURS. And it is clear that God's judgment will be/is directly related to how we lived in love and charity with our neighbor, including the neighbor we are tempted to reject.

There seems a constantly missed distinction between judging each others actions, which is simple discernment and ability to tell right from wrong, and saying so, and judging each others Souls, which I happily leave to God... Also, it is clearly stated we can do nothing to earn salvation. It is freely given by grace and won by Christs sacrifice... Certainly good works are to be expected and are our duty, but they alone don't pave the way anywhere... (Please don't make me look up the numerous scriptures stating this. You know them probably better than I.)
"Jesus also made it clear that we would be judged by the same standard with which we judge...so I'm definitely for what you see as liberal, watered-down judgment."

I welcome my level of "judgment" turned on me. I do so everyday.

Serve me? Thanks... I AM bouncing back and forth doing yard work, so you'd be more than welcome to come give a hand with that. :D

NonLemming

05-25-2006, 04:09 PM

Keltic, glad to know that option is here. How do I *click* such jerks on this site? Difference of opinion is great with me, it's when I learn, but some just take up too much space. Thanks.

Found it, nevermind. thanks, anyway.

awediot

05-25-2006, 05:08 PM

http://www.1000smilies.com/animated/bomb.gif

*BOOM* easy as pie

thanks keltic

tdogg

05-26-2006, 06:08 PM

Just got home from a few days in Alabama for work, and have to tell y'all, the political ads for governor candidates was a bit scary. :eek: It's not so much what they actually say in the ads, but what is insinuated - and while the front part of my brain is telling me, oh just ignore it, it's harmless, it's Alabama and you live in California for goodness sake, the back of my brain is flashing neon red and yellow warning signs. Honestly so very glad I live in California and it's not perfect out here.

I believe in 'conspiracy theories', and I believe that those (in honor of your dissentions Awediot - won't abbreviate) who call themselves Christians and God-fearing and wanting of saving good ole 'family values' may be in the process of attempting to conspire to take over the country. On the surface it sounds incredibly bizarre and impossible - in reality I truly feel that it's more than a little likely. :agree:

Another thought - as someone who appreciates humor, I didn't find anything untoward in Keltic's posts. Don't even think if I were under the spell of an extraordinarily irritable and foul mood, that would have taken them as anything other than a bit funny. ;)

Just my 1.5 cents worth...:rolleyes:

awediot

05-26-2006, 06:35 PM

Another day, another chance to clear my name ( of this misunderstanding) Not that I want to consume this thread (too late) I DID take Keltics comments as humorous. My "time and place" referred to pulling the topic into abstract artsy parallels, not some juvenile threat. The drag king comment referred to his profile pic. (sorry, but I know a few women who end up looking like that for drag king shows. No offense any where way how...) Any insult was generally pointed toward WHOEVER was believing that Christians generally want to kill homos,(offense to them intended) and bring the topic around to distinguishing them... Thats it. I apologize to all... (but maybe 1) and it ain't Keltic...

My whole point was that the conspiracy included making Christians look bad (sadly not hard to do) and was not being created by them. They are prophesied to lose and the mood of popular culture Proves they in fact will... and tdogg, abreviate away... but the awe/ part is less aplicable than the /idiot, at times- as shown here...

Zerbie

05-26-2006, 11:22 PM

abreviate away... but the awe/ part is less aplicable than the /idiot, at times- as shown here...

:eek: :eek: :eek:

May I ask, to what does your screenname refer? Surely, you didn't choose it intending to combine the words "awe" and "idiot"??? :eek: As you imply above. . .:confused: :confused: :confused:

Emproph

05-27-2006, 03:09 AM

My whole point was that the conspiracy included making Christians look bad (sadly not hard to do) and was not being created by them. They are prophesied to lose and the mood of popular culture Proves they in fact will... and tdogg, abreviate away... but the awe/ part is less aplicable than the /idiot, at times- as shown here...You have an excellent point with that and that's what I got out of what you said, and I'm also guilty of it. Like you said, I assume the distinction is made. But knowing that that's too often not the case, it does concern me.

I'd start a thread on it myself because I have something related to it, but right now I'm spread too thin. I will be making the extra effor to clarify the distinction though, here or wherever. :)

tdogg

05-27-2006, 10:14 AM

I agree Awe, a few extremists make all Christians 'look' bad; but isn't that the way it is with everyone? A few promiscuous gays and lesbians make all of us look bad? So, we have to put in the extra effort to rise above what others think about us and their stereotypes. It's an arduous (?) task but constant effort in this area is necessary - those 'real' Christians need to step up to the plate and rise above their perceived beliefs and opinions.

Another thread, but it's so disappointing and frustrating when hi-profile Christians (so-called Christians) get pushed by their richer and more powerful extremists colleagues to act out of character of what Christ Jesus wants us to be (true Christians). These people need to take a stand and take back Christianity. There's more of them than extremists - but I think the money and power of being connected to the extremists is too tempting.

So..maybe there is a need for those who are gay and lesbian and call themselves Christians to step up to the plate and put forth even more effort to battle the stereotypes of both GLBT and Chrisitian appearances. An effort worth putting forth but can be exhausting and frustrating and emotionally/physically/mentally/spiritually draining - which I think is why often we resort to what we don't like in others.

Hey Awe, I like Keltic's profile pic too - got a chuckle out of me! :lol:

Daniel

05-27-2006, 11:11 AM

tdogg- I see your point here, and perhaps this all depends on who's doing the 'looking' and at what they are 'looking' at. But do gay people have to 'rise above' what others think about us? This kind of view, it seems to me, is all too prevelant in LGBT circles and communities of faith. The danger here, as I see it, is separating the good gays from the bad gays- the good gay christians from the bad gay christians. The trouble with this kind of stance is that is does nothing to confront homophobia and religious-based persecution. It assumes that one side is the bouncer in front of the club, and boy, you better look right before you get in. Who are we gonna leave out, I wonder? I want everyone in there.

I agree Awe, a few extremists make all Christians 'look' bad; but isn't that the way it is with everyone? A few promiscuous gays and lesbians make all of us look bad? So, we have to put in the extra effort to rise above what others think about us and their stereotypes. It's an arduous (?) task but constant effort in this area is necessary - those 'real' Christians need to step up to the plate and rise above their perceived beliefs and opinions.

tdogg

05-27-2006, 10:42 PM

The danger here, as I see it, is separating the good gays from the bad gays- the good gay christians from the bad gay christians. The trouble with this kind of stance is that is does nothing to confront homophobia and religious-based persecution. It assumes that one side is the bouncer in front of the club, and boy, you better look right before you get in. Who are we gonna leave out, I wonder? I want everyone in there.

Good points Daniel. We only need to 'rise above' if we care what others think about us as a whole (such as 'community'). For me, it brings up a myriad of questions - why can't we just live our lives, why bother fighting at all, if we ignore those who disagree wi†h us will it eventually lead to them ignoring us, then possibly acceptance and equality? I agree with you on this: don't wanna leave anyone out. I love my gay sisters and brothers, Christian or not, in all their imperfections. That's what it boils down to, none of us are perfect.

revtj

05-28-2006, 01:17 PM

Awediot,

I've really tried to understand your posts, but it always seems to me like you are leaving out some essential presupposition of your faith.

As best I can tell no one in this forum thinks all Christians want to kill all homosexuals. The fact is, a small branch of powerful, rich christians, do however include death penalty for homosexuality in their belief system. If you don't take that seriously, it's OK with me, but your responses to these facts seem glib and surreptitious, like you know something secret about it all that the rest of us just can't attain.

I wish you every worthy wish in your pursuit of God's greater justice and mercy for all people.

T J

Daniel

05-29-2006, 10:15 AM

I'll be there big boy. And wear that bad ass drag king outfit.

Zerbie, I rarely see Christianity portrayed positively here, unless it is the watered down, liberally enlightened version that believes we're all perfectly lovable, Heaven bound, above judgment little innocent lumps of chewy godness. Whole books are dissolved and Christ-consciousness is worn proudly in the face of explicit, dire warnings that we will do just that. Huge elements of God's judgment, requirements, and consequences of rejection are off handedly dismissed in the name of knowing what the Bible really was saying and no one ever points it out.

Ok. As a matter of discourse, I have a few questions.

How should Christianity be portrayed here for it to be "positive" and not "watered down"? What would that look like?

Who's warnings? And from where?

What's so bad about Christ Consciousness?

It seems to me that you're not getting something you need out of the discourse here.

Liberal Crozier

05-29-2006, 03:45 PM

For the past several years, I have read and contributed to talk2action. More, I have met the website founders and recognise that they are individuals who have - from a MA residency - supported the marital rights of their fellow citizens.

It is one of those individuals who suggested that when you attend Church that you hear about secular neocon right wing politics, and when you attend a secular neocon right political rally or event, all you hear is their version of right-wing theocracy.

I am still reading when I have the energy and have something to say other than ...........yeah, me too.........grin..........

schoolboi

05-30-2006, 08:02 AM

The main premise of Mel White’s new book due out this fall is that theocracy is a real threat. I hope all of you will pick it up as soon as it comes out. It is eye opening. (I had the opportunity to read it as he was writing it.) You should see the list of endorsements the book has received. It is impressive.

Emproph

05-30-2006, 09:51 AM

The main premise of Mel White’s new book due out this fall is that theocracy is a real threat.And yet you still seem so happy about it all...

awediot

05-30-2006, 03:36 PM

...pick up/leave off...

May I ask, to what does your screenname refer? Surely, you didn't choose it intending to combine the words "awe" and "idiot"???

That I did... http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/685.gifand that I thought it'd be clear only shows how appropriate it is. (less people put it together than I expected) It was meant to capture the mood of a particularly heightened moment when we are stupefied or dumbfounded at the insane, meticulous brilliance of it all... I like the juxtaposition..

I've really tried to understand your posts, but it always seems to me like you are leaving out some essential presupposition of your faith.
As best I can tell no one in this forum thinks all Christians want to kill all homosexuals. The fact is, a small branch of powerful, rich christians, do however include death penalty for homosexuality in their belief system. If you don't take that seriously, it's OK with me, but your responses to these facts seem glib and surreptitious, like you know something secret about it all that the rest of us just can't attain.

I guess if anything is designed to be left off, it is presuppositions, rather than become redundant or worse, condescending... Christian to me, is pretty traditional and what used to be self explanatory. Jesus is the Messiah, bodily rose from the grave, which provided us saving grace... There was an 'in the beginning', we are somewhere in the middle, and there will be a dramatic judgment day type end... Its a familiar outline. My personal tweaking of details fills pages here... I realize no one thinks all Christians are queer killers. I'm less certain about people thinking they are all queer haters or damners, or that they all believe we are drug addled molesting, orgy going, Satan worshiping little projects needing to be saved from ourselves. That, I think some people do believe... Look around, how are Christians typically portrayed on this site? -The evil Reich wingers aren't the only ones guilty of using stereotypes to their advantage.

Within the context of the prevailing mood of this country, I do feel the fear of a Christian theocracy is misplaced. I fear the building backlash against them much more. That is what will soon explode, that is what will give those really in power the boost they need, and that is what will fulfill prophecy. The fear of theocracy is a set up playing right into Bush's masters' hands... This can appear in the ears as secretive because it is so hard to hear. My 'secrets' are there for all who can hear. Machiavellian I ain't... Attain of it what you want. Its there for the asking. I'm as blunt and up front as my common courtesy allows.

How should Christianity be portrayed here for it to be "positive" and not "watered down"? What would that look like?
Who's warnings? And from where?
What's so bad about Christ Consciousness?
It seems to me that you're not getting something you need out of the discourse here.

Daniel, portraying anything in an intentional light to shape perceptions is the medias job, not ours. I'd be happy with simple honesty and admitted, natural bias being exposed... That way, the positive or negative creates itself. Obviously, I do not think that is done well here.

Who's warnings, and from where? ...maybe God Itself, maybe the most insaneous secret society ever. You tell me...

(eek! you made me do this...)

1 Corinthians 4:14
14 > I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children.
John 16:25
25 > "Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father.
2 Timothy 3:1-4
1 >But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 > People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 >without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4> treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--
Galatians 5:19-21
19 >The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 > idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 >and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
John 9:39
39 > Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."
John16:8
8 >When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment.
2 Peter 3:3-4
3 >First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 >They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."
Matthew 10:32-34
32 > "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 >But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34 >"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

A huge element of the bible is a warning and cautionary tale.

If by Christ Consciousness, you are referring to the idea that Jesus saw and mostly considered himself to be a symbolic archetype of humanity, gifted only with recognition of inner divinity, but not uniquely divine himself, and that he was simply the most influential, and infamous of many similarly educated and enlightened prophets, seers, mystics, avatars, Bodhisattvas and christs, and the crucifixion was symbol that got out of hand and was taken too literally, when metaphorically would have sufficed, the 'risen from the grave' thing just meant the spirit of love couldn't die, and the second coming was to be a collective, internal evoleap closer to inevitable godhood, if these are close to your meaning, then I would have to say I believe you have adopted an old, humanistic, desperately modernized perspective employing brilliant, ouroborosian etymologies in one sentence, and artful, hallucinogenic mind f***ks the very next (both needed and illustrated well in order to extract the "real" meaning from the above passages.). The very thought met at vocal cords resounding Christ's message are chewed up and gagged down, devoured in an attempt to digest and manifest what must not at all cost, be thought of as original sin... Simply, I think its the serpents story all over again... You are an amnesiatic deity being brainwash blocked by the church and its opiated teachings of seperation... nothing new...

...and no, I'm not getting some of the things I need from the discourse here. None of us are. So...?

... when you attend Church that you hear about secular neocon right wing politics, and when you attend a secular neocon right political rally or event, all you hear is their version of right-wing theocracy

Good summation of why I attend neither.

The whole burr that triggered this, rests on the question: How are Christians usually portrayed on this site? ...and I'll leave it there.

tdogg

05-30-2006, 04:21 PM

How they are portrayed is generally how those doing the portraying have been treated by the same person(s)/group(s) - if the person posting has had negative experiences by Christians, it isn't unreasonable that they would portray Christians negatively. You might not believe that this is an appropriate behavior but it is totally appropriate according to the 'reasonable person' standard.

Daniel

05-30-2006, 06:08 PM

Daniel, portraying anything in an intentional light to shape perceptions is the medias job, not ours. I'd be happy with simple honesty and admitted, natural bias being exposed... That way, the positive or negative creates itself. Obviously, I do not think that is done well here.

Awediot- I agree with you. "Simple honesty" is a great thing to have in any discussion. That said, I get the feeling that much of what transpires here isn't up to your standards. How about answer your own assertion? I do not think that is done well here. How would it be done well here? Please use examples if need be....I'm sure Jamie would be interested in this.

Who's warnings, and from where? ...maybe God Itself, maybe the most insaneous secret society ever. You tell me...

(eek! you made me do this...)

A huge element of the bible is a warning and cautionary tale.

Yes. I get the whole warning thing from the Bible loud and clear. That said, I doubt that I take these 'warnings' in the same way you do. I may be misconstruing your intent here, but you seem to be more of a literalist and take such things very seriously. I do not. 'Warnings' are totally fear-based motivational tactics. We live in a time where we've learned that the brain doesn't respond to messages of fear all that well. Sure. It activates the flight or fight response. But that doesn't make for subtle thinking or great art or music for that matter. Those require higher functions in the brain. Are warnings great crowd control? You bet. But even that fails on some level: warnings are akin to the stage director who is always saying "Don't go over there whatever you do! Don't do it like that!" After weeks of that approach one turns off. It's much better to have someone say "Try it like this!" The practical matter is that when you get a group of old stagers together and instruct them on how to do something and have them do it a bunch of times and then change things on them, what will they do when they're tired and not thinking too well? The first instructions, that's what. First impressions tend to stay with us. Why should it be any different in matters of faith? Hellfire and Brimstone anyone? Hard to forget I'm sure. I'm just glad I was spared all that.

If by Christ Consciousness, you are referring to the idea...

Hey. Full Stop. You used this term first. Remember? I was asking you what you meant by this because you seemed to imply that it was a big bad thing. Why the diatribe?

....I would have to say I believe you have adopted an old, humanistic, desperately modernized perspective employing brilliant, ouroborosian etymologies in one sentence, and artful, hallucinogenic mind f***ks the very next (both needed and illustrated well in order to extract the "real" meaning from the above passages.). The very thought met at vocal cords resounding Christ's message are chewed up and gagged down, devoured in an attempt to digest and manifest what must not at all cost, be thought of as original sin... Simply, I think its the serpents story all over again... You are an amnesiatic deity being brainwash blocked by the church and its opiated teachings of seperation... nothing new...

Ok. The last line here. Who is the "you" in that sentence? Since I know I'm not a diety I'll assume you mean Jesus here. For myself? I do not believe in Original Sin. Mistakes? Yes. We all make them. But being damned for them at birth? Please. A nice way to control people it seems to me. Get them to do what you want before they want anything.

I haven't the foggiest notion what JC thought of himself. But I do know that separate from the person there is the idea called Christ Consciousness. It a concept that originated in Eastern Thinking and has everything to do with Christ and his message as seen through those philosophies and less to do with Orthodox faith. Rather than damn those philosophies, I would hope you would try to understand how others see things differently than you, that is, if you aren't in the discourse with an axe to grind. Are you?

...and no, I'm not getting some of the things I need from the discourse here. None of us are. So...?

If you know you're not getting what you need here, well......please do something about it. You'll find plenty of company in that. We may not all share the same values but we do share, one hopes, the same goal. And this is to bring an end to oppression of LGBT persons of faith. That's why I'm here.

Can we at least agree on that?

I don't think Christians are getting a bad rap here. Not at all. This thread simply points out the danger of a certain type of thinking, which, despite your protestations to the contrary, actually exists. Now if that isn't a fear based warning, what is?

awediot

05-30-2006, 09:18 PM

...if the person posting has had negative experiences by Christians, it isn't unreasonable that they would portray Christians negatively

tdogg, it is quite reasonable and to be expected. Hopefully it is also recognized as a stage and one can see beyond the messenger to examine the message itself. (the whole venari incident is a perfect example. His criticisms may have been valid but were buried with emotional reactions). Interesting how glaring Christian hypocrisy is, as they hold themselves up against perfection, using it intentionally as a lens to magnify their faults. (theoretically anyway) Its much easier to just lower the bar.

I get the feeling that much of what transpires here isn't up to your standards. How about answer your own assertion?
Quote:
"I do not think that is done well here."
How would it be done well here? Please use examples if need be....I'm sure Jamie would be interested in this.

Examples are a bad idea that get me in trouble. The 'out of context' and 'not what I meant' defense are cocked and loaded. (as you may see in a moment) My statement arises from my day one on this site, when the constant use of the word "Fundamentalist" struck me as parallel as to how those fundamentalists sneer out the word 'homosexual'. The generalized pictures they both produce are equally untrue. We resent being painted with the broad brush of media ready sleaze (pride parade thread) then do the exact same thing. Alot of Christians are neutral or embarrassed by their own news worthy extremes and resent the politically power hungery that represent them... Those boring Christians do not appear here, just as the boring homos are absent from their sites... I can do nothing more than point out my observation, hope it sinks in and leave others to do it well.

Yes. I get the whole warning thing from the Bible loud and clear. That said, I doubt that I take these 'warnings' in the same way you do. I may be misconstruing your intent here, but you seem to be more of a literalist and take such things very seriously. I do not. 'Warnings' are totally fear-based motivational tactics. We live in a time where we've learned that the brain doesn't respond to messages of fear all that well. Sure. It activates the flight or fight response. But that doesn't make for subtle thinking or great art or music for that matter. Those require higher
functions in the brain.

I do take the remotest possibility of the positive and negative ultimately dividing (heaven and hell), rather than merging, very seriously. It makes quite a bit of sense to me that has nothing to do with the bible. The idea itself includes danger, which Love for each other turns into a warning. Dismissing fear before the hazard is crazy. The manipulation of this natural thought process by the Church and government for its own ends (obedient, crowd control), is the largest blasphemy I leave for God to rectify. But they still are only using the concept as a tool, they didn't make... Disbelief is no protection if its real...I guess I'm still waiting for distinctly greater art and music to emerge from higher, modern minds before I write off our addle brained history.

Ok. The last line here. Who is the "you" in that sentence? Since I know I'm not a diety I'll assume you mean Jesus here. For myself? I do not believe in Original Sin. Mistakes? Yes. We all make them. But being damned for them at birth? Please.

My diatribe on Christ Consciousness was directed generally, and intended for whoever it would resonate with. I have a bad habit of using "you". ...But, this 'out of context' and misunderstood I am God (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=512) post of yours, has always kind of stuck with me. I'd forgotten it until now. You can elaborate if you wish, but those three words are my last taboo... (Original sin/ age of accountability/ carrying Adam's guilt...a Later thread....) My view of this philosophy is pretty studied, tried, road tested and abandoned for better. I'm open to other's perspectives and respect their journey, and I am truly happy where they find Truth. But where and when it may have personally failed me and why I decided to move on, is something I hope for from everybody. Its helpful.

If you know you're not getting what you need here, well......please do something about it. You'll find plenty of company in that. We may not all share the same values but we do share, one hopes, the same goal. And this is to bring an end to oppression of LGBT persons of faith. That's why I'm here.
Can we at least agree on that?

Yes. And (so much better than Yes/But) I am doing something about it, but know I'll never get all I want out of this... No big deal... We do want the same ends (who doesn't), and see different ways of achieving them. Such is Life...

Daniel

05-30-2006, 11:27 PM

...But, this 'out of context' and misunderstood I am God (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=512) post of yours, has always kind of stuck with me. I'd forgotten it until now. You can elaborate if you wish, but those three words are my last taboo... (Original sin/ age of accountability/ carrying Adam's guilt...a Later thread....) My view of this philosophy is pretty studied, tried, road tested and abandoned for better. I'm open to other's perspectives and respect their journey, and I am truly happy where they find Truth. But where and when it may have personally failed me and why I decided to move on, is something I hope for from everybody. Its helpful.

You'll have to enlighten me what you're referring to when you mention "My view of this philosophy is pretty studied..." What exactly have you abandoned?

So my "I am God" post stuck with you? Well, when I read the story it stuck with me too- but I could not remember the source at the time of my post. It only popped into my mind some time later that I had read this story in a bio of the Hindu Mystic Swami Vivekananda who brought Hinduism and all things Eastern to America in the 1880'a and once remarked in reference to his own mystical experience:

There is one thing to be remembered: that the assertion—I am God—cannot be made with regard to the sense-world.

I take this to mean that a statement such as "I am God" isn't uttered or understood via what would be considered a normal state of consciousness. Guess you gotta be a Mystic to 'understand' this sort of thing.

Daniel

05-31-2006, 12:04 AM

Awediot,

After I made my last post here I was tooling around that found this via the Huffington Post. Odd how I just posted on the "We can talk about anything here" thread and said I didn't play games....well...it seems that there are those who do. And a rather nasty one at that.

Is there a bunch of 'christians' out there who are practicing for the ascendancy of Theocracy? It would seem so.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/29/195855/959
Imagine: you are a foot soldier in a paramilitary group whose purpose is to remake America as a Christian theocracy, and establish its worldly vision of the dominion of Christ over all aspects of life. You are issued high-tech military weaponry, and instructed to engage the infidel on the streets of New York City. You are on a mission - both a religious mission and a military mission -- to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state - especially moderate, mainstream Christians.

Zerbie

05-31-2006, 12:22 AM

First, the aside, the day you joined this forum I looked at your name and saw the juxtaposition of awe and idiot, but dismissed that deciding you must have had some other meaning in mind. Cuz it looked rather like a bizarre self-put-down to read it with the self-label "idiot" in mind. :eek: Well, oddly enough. . .

Now to get to something more important, you say you aren't getting what you need out of this site. But you've stayed. :rainbow: And for that I am very glad. :love:

Please tell us where you would like our discussions to go. I'm willing to go most places in a discussion (though a few places we might "go" are emotionally triggering for you and me both, given that we have Hot Button triggers on polar opposite ends of the "Christianity" matter. But if we can't discuss them openly and still remain friends, what hope is there for millions of strangers?):pray:

So, if you are willing, tell us what you want out of the forum. You've now made numerous allusions to being frustrated with our conversational style, so take us someplace you want to go. See who follows.

:love:

Dash

05-31-2006, 02:31 PM

The link to Talk2Action is certainly disturbing.

Two random recollections from my high-school days: 1) My oldest brother was at one point ready to be a "warrior for God" in the purely literal sense. He liked all kinds of weapons and read magazines about mercenaries and stuff. My dad (so I heard) flat out told him that God didn't need anyone to fight for him. 2) I myself was completely captivated by biblical prophecy...eschatology...The Book of Daniel...Revelation. I watched a television show for a few years called "Prophecy In The News," where these two gentlemen dissected every daily occurrence on the world stage to discern its prophetic implications. They are probably still on TV. I came across them once, long after I had abandoned their perspectives. They had already grown white-haired with all their predicting and divining, and had outlived more than one expected date of Christ's return in that time.

Young people--and sometimes people not so young--are easily enchanted by the spell "end of days." Though it lost its charm for me, I forget that many are still captivated by its magical thrill. In my opinion, it is the "sci-fi/fantasy" genre of Christianity. A video game seems a natural step in its marketing evolution, though I'm surprised at its level of violence.

The theocracy movement draws power from the magic of "Biblical Prophecy" and strives to see those threads in all aspects of our society...and to weave them, as well, where they are not seen. For my part, I am troubled by all such talk of prophecy. One of the most embarassing moments in the Bible (as C.S. Lewis once pointed out) is Christ's statement that "this generation would not pass away" before all the signs of the end had happened and He had returned. He so obviously believed that he would return in their generation, and He...even he...was so obviously wrong. I have to admit that I'm even troubled when Awediot speaks of Christians being "prophesied to lose." That entire avenue of Biblical interpretation can never be credible to me. Like Intelligent Design, it already "knows" the answer, and tries to formulate theories that will support it's preconception.

The Dominionist movement holds awful potential for social injustice. We see the same injustices perpetrated all over the globe in the name of religious dogma, nationalism, racial purity and greed. The response to this injustice--which is oppression of the mind, spirit and body of others--will never be a uniquely Christian response, because Christians themselves have historically perpetrated this same injustice and still bear the same capacity for it as non-christians do.

Cruelty is only known by those who have suffered it, and healing is only known by those who have been wounded. The light that stands against this darkness shines within many faiths, and is easily recognized by those who love it. It is known not by dogma or verses, but by the gentleness and healing love lived by those who follow it.

keltic63

05-31-2006, 02:48 PM

Young people--and sometimes people not so young--are easily enchanted by the spell "end of days." Though it lost its charm for me, I forget that many are still captivated by its magical thrill. In my opinion, it is the "sci-fi/fantasy" genre of Christianity. A video game seems a natural step in its marketing evolution, though I'm surprised at its level of violence.

It already exists. I saw it saturday while at the game store at the local mall: Left Behind Video/PC games (http://68.178.160.145/pages/store/index.php?cPath=1)

Yeah. I was surprised and disturbed.

awediot

05-31-2006, 03:41 PM

You'll have to enlighten me what you're referring to when you mention "My view of this philosophy is pretty studied..." What exactly have you abandoned?

Perhaps "Christ Consciousness" is described and arrived at through too many varied angles to be called a philosophy in itself. One thing they seem to share is that "Christ-ness" is attainable by all. Simple, unenlightened reading of the Bible says this is self-deification, and a repeat of original sin. Sophisticated, between the lines reinterpretation is forced on easy, clear cut statements and not only do we think ourselves brilliant, we discover we are gods, the one thing we are warned we are not... It is fascinating and horrible to watch.

The Vid Game: sick, silly, satanic, won't pose any threat to the latest Doom or Grand Theft Auto gore. It will be used to mock, give Conan and Leno some material and not see the light of day in any honest Christian home (yes, there are differences). Christ told of all sorts of evil being done in His name... This is a glaring example. Simpson fodder all the way.

If a person believes that their personal point of view, their spirituality, is more a peaceful and loving one than whatever is driving the world, it is natural to try and spread it for the good of everyone. It is your DUTY to try. SoulForce exists for that very reason. Whatever is finally successful, will be a theocracy. The "More Spiritual Than Religious" (MSTR) group IS a religion, with its own history, vocabulary, dogma, exclusivity and bigotry. Indecisiveness is a belief system as well thought out, mature and self defensive as any other, and as it accepts no or all, some of this or part of that "God", depending on the mood or weather or latest 20/20, its adherents assume the role of God by default since they allow nothing other than their own calculated, selective indecision to fill that gap. It has a numbing false humility, air tight, unquestionable open mindedness and bottomless, collusive pride in thinking itself to be the heart of all religions. It is the perfect Ultra-nonreligion poised and destined to take over the planet... The Christian claim of absolutes is its real enemy and the fear of their, and particularly their theocracy is an intentional, exaggerated smokescreen increasing the hatred of them. Admittedly, they are a large and influential force and worthy of concern, but their blasphemous, anti-christian works should be the recognized as the target... As often as I've tried to outgrow or enlighten or reposition my way out of prophecy, it continues to devolve exactly like we were told it would and that is gut wrenchingly, inescapably obvious to me.

Please tell us where you would like our discussions to go.

I try Zerbie. Most of my topics are not gay affirming enough, too defensively Christian, critical of SF or nit-picky and semantical... I've always been a lousy team player and loner and am not shocked to see it reflected here. My perspective doesn't exactly endear me to either gays or Christians and I'm used to it.

Young people--and sometimes people not so young--are easily enchanted by the spell "end of days." Though it lost its charm for me, I forget that many are still captivated by its magical thrill.

Huh? Could your old soul self be a little more condescending next time Dash? The pixie dust of these climactic days has entranced my baby brain...

* The greedy, Godless makers of this game will answer for it. They represent believers like this (http://www.winternet.com/~redright/scatsite/sslinks.htm) represents gays. (spared you the pics, which are as offensive as this game.)

Daniel

05-31-2006, 09:27 PM

The link to Talk2Action is certainly disturbing.

Cruelty is only known by those who have suffered it, and healing is only known by those who have been wounded. The light that stands against this darkness shines within many faiths, and is easily recognized by those who love it. It is known not by dogma or verses, but by the gentleness and healing love lived by those who follow it.

Dash- A resounding YES to this last sentence! Your thoughts are beautifully expressed and captured my own experience regarding the Spell of the End of Days. I was watching the 700 club along with you.

There was a movie back then about the Rapture which had me in a daze for at least 3 months. I was beside myself with anxiety, fear and a heightened sense of romanticized self-importance. That longing grew into something else entirely and it was only with time that I could name it for what it was: the search for Love.

And like you, I hardly know what to make of prophecy, though I do know that it's been shown that even the best psychics are only 'right' 80% of the time. And I've come to see that even acknowledged mystics have their human failings and misinformed perceptions. Divine revelation, whatever it is distinguished by, hardly seems to be the product of perfect beings. I do think though, that the mind, when it is stilled, can experience Bliss, God, Whatever The All That Is Everything Is. However, when you get up from the cushion someone still has to take out the trash.

Zerbie

05-31-2006, 11:53 PM

I try Zerbie. Most of my topics are not gay affirming enough, too defensively Christian, critical of SF or nit-picky and semantical... I've always been a lousy team player and loner and am not shocked to see it reflected here. My perspective doesn't exactly endear me to either gays or Christians and I'm used to it.

(spared you the pics, which are as offensive as this game.)

Hey Awe, keep trying. You're good at standing in the middle and staking out your own place "between" sides/times/polarities. "Leadership quality," dontcha think?

Fwiw, my kindergarten teacher wrote a note on my first report card to the effect of: "Zerbie prefers to work independently and does not enjoy being on a team. But I think this will change by the time she enters first grade."

BWAAAHHHAAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Did you get similar notes on your report cards?

I have great respect for your comfort level and strength in both maintaining and articulating your perspective. you're a tough person, and more importantly, you're uniquely authentic, and I admire you. I'm glad you keep posting - we need to see a variety of viewpoints here. You'll notice I may stay away from the overly nit-picky and semantic ones, tho. :p

DASH - your post was incredibly beautiful!! Thank you so much. :love: :love: :love:

dewdrop_world

06-01-2006, 10:19 PM

Hi Awediot,

I have been turning over some of your recent posts for a couple of days now, just been too busy to write.

The first thing I wanted to say is, I like you better now that you're out of the closet! When you were self censoring and over editing, honestly, I could hardly make heads or tails of what you were trying to say. Now you're making sense, and your energy and conviction come through loud and clear.

The other thing I like is that you're posing a real challenge, exactly the kind of challenge I was looking for when I joined the board. I didn't come here to get support for my worldview. I came here to hear perspectives I'm not familiar with and to question myself with those ideas in mind, so my own thinking can be refined. Your posts in the last week or two are just what I'm looking for. They're showing me how a (relatively) traditional Christian view can be something other than a carbon copy of either fire and brimstone preaching or the kind of happy, fuzzy, toothless mainline Christianity you, correctly, deplore.

Perhaps "Christ Consciousness" is described and arrived at through too many varied angles to be called a philosophy in itself. One thing they seem to share is that "Christ-ness" is attainable by all. Simple, unenlightened reading of the Bible says this is self-deification, and a repeat of original sin. Sophisticated, between the lines reinterpretation is forced on easy, clear cut statements and not only do we think ourselves brilliant, we discover we are gods, the one thing we are warned we are not... It is fascinating and horrible to watch.

I struggle with the paradox that "All are made in the image of God, but all fall short of the glory of God." That's probably closer to the heart of my spirituality than even I suspect at this point. It's a riddle I can't answer. I do take from it, though, the sense that both insights, in whatever form, are necessary for a mature spirituality.

If more recent theological developments concentrate on our likeness to God at the expense of our failures to attain that state, it seems to me a reaction (overreaction) to the kind of false Christianity that sees the grace of God in one's difference from an abject, demonized other. There is certainly a cri de coeur in the best liberal theology that shouldn't be dismissed as a will to ethical convenience. I feel it myself when I look at what the Catholic Church has become. I am sometimes ill in my gut when I see how far the Roman hierarchy has fallen.

In any case, I'm very interested in how the two sides of the equation can be integrated. The mainline denominations are fracturing along this fault line and the two sides are becoming more and more entrenched, extreme, and prone to scrapple for ecclesiastical territory (complete with fire hydrant pissing matches). It's gone beyond correcting the excesses of a one-sided theology into, in some, a desire to wipe dissent off the face of the earth. That's what I find disgusting to watch.

If a person believes that their personal point of view, their spirituality, is more a peaceful and loving one than whatever is driving the world, it is natural to try and spread it for the good of everyone. It is your DUTY to try. SoulForce exists for that very reason. Whatever is finally successful, will be a theocracy.

Is there such a thing as a benevolent theocracy?

The "More Spiritual Than Religious" (MSTR) group IS a religion, with its own history, vocabulary, dogma, exclusivity and bigotry. Indecisiveness is a belief system as well thought out, mature and self defensive as any other, and as it accepts no or all, some of this or part of that "God", depending on the mood or weather or latest 20/20, its adherents assume the role of God by default since they allow nothing other than their own calculated, selective indecision to fill that gap. It has a numbing false humility, air tight, unquestionable open mindedness and bottomless, collusive pride in thinking itself to be the heart of all religions. It is the perfect Ultra-nonreligion poised and destined to take over the planet... The Christian claim of absolutes is its real enemy and the fear of their, and particularly their theocracy is an intentional, exaggerated smokescreen increasing the hatred of them.

This one, I'm still mulling over. I see some gems of truth in it, but I'm not sure of some of the other conclusions.

In language that's more familiar to me, it seems like this is about the role of tradition. For whatever reason, I seem to be wired to see things in terms of balancing opposites. Too much emphasis on tradition results in a stagnant spirituality, while too much emphasis on "what I want to get out of spirituality" results in a shallow, empty, pseudo-practice that never shakes you to the core. So what is the right balance?

I would agree totally that a spirituality that is not seriously grounded, rooted, in some tradition is doomed to wander aimlessly and exhibit exactly the qualities you describe. I don't believe that it sets itself up with destroying Christian absolutes as a primary goal. I think more than anything else, it's a side effect of consumer culture. When things get too tough on one road, fire your guru and throw some money at another one. It's no accident that "MSTR" is mainly an educated, middle/upper-middle/upper class phenomenon (and yes, mostly white).

I've heard more than one Buddhist teacher say that it's useless to dig lots of shallow holes, trying a little bit of everything. You have to stick with one path especially when it becomes uncomfortable, because it's only then that real growth occurs.

Keep this stuff coming! I'm learning a lot.
James

Daniel

06-02-2006, 09:35 AM

... I like you better now that you're out of the closet! When you were self censoring and over editing, honestly, I could hardly make heads or tails of what you were trying to say.

Awdiot- I agree with James here: it's been hard for me to decipher your meaning and intent at times. And there has been more than one occasion when I thought you simply meant to offend. If you've been holding back, well, that would explain things, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by Awediot.
Perhaps "Christ Consciousness" is described and arrived at through too many varied angles to be called a philosophy in itself. One thing they seem to share is that "Christ-ness" is attainable by all. Simple, unenlightened reading of the Bible says this is self-deification, and a repeat of original sin. Sophisticated, between the lines reinterpretation is forced on easy, clear cut statements and not only do we think ourselves brilliant, we discover we are gods, the one thing we are warned we are not... It is fascinating and horrible to watch.

Another view posits that "Christ-ness" or "Buddha-nature" isn't "attainable by all", as much as it is our intrinsic nature, waiting to be realized when all the obstructions to it are removed. Or course, this perspective is more Eastern than Western and Esoteric than Exoteric. It presupposes that what we see and think deals with the nature of perception itself and questions the "I", or ego, that is doing the attaining.

Without being too reductive, I wonder if our trouble with these matters has something to do with the structure of our brains, that is, being divided into two parts, right and left, we are befuddled between left side logic and nonlinear gestalt. Perhaps like the comprehension of poetry, where its been shown that both sides work together in the making and understanding it, its a matter of maintaining a 'Both And', rather than an 'Either Or', perspective.

Now, does this kind of thinking fall into the camp you describe below?

Originally posted by Awediot
The "More Spiritual Than Religious" (MSTR) group IS a religion, with its own history, vocabulary, dogma, exclusivity and bigotry. Indecisiveness is a belief system as well thought out, mature and self defensive as any other, and as it accepts no or all, some of this or part of that "God", depending on the mood or weather or latest 20/20, its adherents assume the role of God by default since they allow nothing other than their own calculated, selective indecision to fill that gap. It has a numbing false humility, air tight, unquestionable open mindedness and bottomless, collusive pride in thinking itself to be the heart of all religions. It is the perfect Ultra-nonreligion poised and destined to take over the planet... The Christian claim of absolutes is its real enemy and the fear of their, and particularly their theocracy is an intentional, exaggerated smokescreen increasing the hatred of them.

One might think so at first glance, but it seems to me that the true seeker (and by that I do not mean a consumer of spirituality) seeks to get to the bottom of things through self-inquiry and a great deal of skillfulness and effort. The practioner (and could it not be said that the pursuit of Reality needs a high degree of discipline?) eventually comes to the conclusion that there is no room for the quaint pastime of unexamined beliefs. Tradition may be what it is, but that is no substitute for first hand experience.

Originally Posted by dewdrop_world
I've heard more than one Buddhist teacher say that it's useless to dig lots of shallow holes, trying a little bit of everything. You have to stick with one path especially when it becomes uncomfortable, because it's only then that real growth occurs.

This identical issue is faced in any artform. The artist comes up against himself/herself and has to struggle with mastering the same. In the end, there is the matter of craft and method to deal with, which is overlooked at one's peril. Sure, it's nice to dream about being a great pianist, but being one is more than a matter of talent: no matter how talented you are you still have to practice your scales.

awediot

06-02-2006, 02:56 PM

Hhhmmmmkay... not sure how to approach all this... First, I'm glad you like me more now, though I feel I'm being more cutting and offensive now than before. More to come... Let me sum up where I'm coming from and how I got there, or here...

I've thought through a few scenarios with the intention of abandoning all theological input (or as close as possible) just to see where the brain, its logic and imagination can go. I wondered where human nature leads as to ideas about God, death and afterlife... It appears: No matter what we do, as deeply as we can go, say in a meditative state of heightened uniony bliss, we will still be derailed by needing a potty break, by wanting a snack, getting sleepy or stung by wasp. We above all else, even willpower, are slaves to our bodies needs. Breatharians are urban myth. Masters of mind control still must take a dump now and then. The body is the great leveler. It has needs you have no choice but to meet first and foremost...

That understood, we ask what MUST I do? What do I have no choice in? Taken literally, it is not a list. You do not need to ever work again. You need never drink, if you are determined, you don't have to take another breath and if you are really quick and accurate, that could be your last heartbeat... Either way, one of them will be. The only thing we all inescapably will share in, is death.

Then what? What all in all is possible? Actually, at first, only two things. There is more, you are in some fashion aware and retain enough essence of self to recognize a continuation, or nothing. We will never discover the lack of an afterlife... This maxes out our very imaginations. All finer points and ethereal religious detail are encompassed by these two extremes. The attempts to abstract a third possibility are so far beyond any reality we know as to be equivalent to to nothing, as it is nothing we can know, and so still have only two options.

Then what? Again, variations are endless. But, we will either find it initially pleasant, more positive feeling, or not. It may be frightening, exciting and confusing but there will be an immediate sense of liking it, or dread. No neutral mind could make it this far. Boredom is not an option.

A couple other possibilities, you may be alone, or their may be others. You may have "room" to move and grow, or you may be "done" with no where else to go. You may stay, or be able to go, and you may rule, or there may be a boss who wants to talk to you.

...its a matter of maintaining a 'Both And', rather than an 'Either Or', perspective.

Do you mean either a "Both And" or "Either Or" perspective? Or both, and... This is that oroborosian (snake eating it's tail) thinking that works only on paper. We cannot hold two completely contradictory states at once. I cannot be at peace and terrified, exist and not, do what I simultaneously undo at the same time. Some situations may accommodate both and more, but these do not.

This thought process has nothing to do with a god, the bible or any other influence. It is how I see the raw mind navigate, and the only way it can possibly do so, the basics of religion. It is parenthetical and the structure of thought all religions work within and can manipulate. It can be added on, but it cannot be reduced. It is not the product of any dogma, but the source from which all doctrine springs from. And it etches into our Soul the possibility of eternal Heaven and Hell and a God in all ways supreme to us. It overrides and dis-empowers belief by shear possibility and I found the Bible happens to explain it, not create it...

This may or may not answer some of your questions... I'll post this now, but be back and see if I can address some more specifics you've asked...Peace.

awediot

06-02-2006, 03:22 PM

Zerbie

06-02-2006, 04:02 PM

another along the same lines...

If someone acknowledges at least a "Higher Power", the next question is "Higher" than what? Well, clearly higher than ME, You, us... And We are sentient, caring, intelligent etc. so It must be Higher, Better and an improvement on the Best that makes us up. Thus, logically it must follow that The MIND of your Higher Power, The Soul and Being of Any Higher Power is superior. It is a Being at least as much as you, or, you are the Being choosing to define grand, abstract forces as gods, at your educated whim... God is a Creator and Supreme Being, or you are... Even the humble sounding All is God, still rest squarely on you defining it as such, and pointing out that this is less evolved god than that, is a quiet declaration of your own deity.

okay, i need some tea and an aspirin
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/spezial/Fool/kuku.gif

Unless. . .unless the mind making the comparisons is the "lower than" and all being is on an "equal" plane, though "equal" wouldn't make sense if there were no comparisons. . .:confused: ok, I need some tea too.

In awe of Awe.

Oh and - adding this remark: Yes Awe, you are easier to understand and talk to now. Earlier, when your positions were unclear, it was difficult to relate back to you. I, regrettably, dismissed a few of your early posts as disconnected. I'm sorry I was missing all of this, but now I'm just happy that here it is, and here you are. . .yay.

dewdrop_world

06-02-2006, 04:40 PM

Hhhmmmmkay... not sure how to approach all this... First, I'm glad you like me more now, though I feel I'm being more cutting and offensive now than before.

At work so I can't write anything substantive. Being offensive doesn't concern me... and anyway, Ms. Girl, if you ever really offend me, hon, you'll know it :eek:

:lol:

hjh

Daniel

06-02-2006, 05:29 PM

Hhhmmmmkay... not sure how to approach all this... First, I'm glad you like me more now, though I feel I'm being more cutting and offensive now than before. More to come... Let me sum up where I'm coming from and how I got there, or here...

Well....awediot.....I never actually said I liked you. I said I could understand you better. (Stage direction: laughter!) That said, I like to think that the prickly person even you describe yourself being is the 'front man'. I have the sense that you are far more engaging in real time. And I can imagine that person to be very likeable.

Do you mean either a "Both And" or "Either Or" perspective? Or both, and...

I meant to be as simple as I wrote: a 'Both And' dynamic rather than an "Either Or" one. Yes. I agree with you. We cannot maintain two contradictory states at the same time, but I would posit that the sustaining of a paradox depends on the point of view- not the state itself. What I'm getting at is our mode of perception itself. Paradox exists within an 'both and' dynamic while 'either or' functions in a much more reductive scheme of things.

This thought process has nothing to do with a god, the bible or any other influence. It is how I see the raw mind navigate, and the only way it can possibly do so, the basics of religion. It is parenthetical and the structure of thought all religions work within and can manipulate. It can be added on, but it cannot be reduced. It is not the product of any dogma, but the source from which all doctrine springs from. And it etches into our Soul the possibility of eternal Heaven and Hell and a God in all ways supreme to us. It overrides and dis-empowers belief by shear possibility and I found the Bible happens to explain it, not create it...

I'm not sure what the 'its' in the sentences above refers to exactly, though my take on these matters is that the way we see what we see is part and parcel of seeing. Depending on where you are, you 'either' see the forest 'or' the trees. Back up enough 'and' you see 'both'. That's why I love the paintings of Vermeer. His canny use of perspective delights the eye without sacrificing any detail.

Sure. We all have the same basic component parts in our heads, but it's how we use them that matters. Even the tin man learned that having a brain wasn't the important thing.

Dear awediot. What is it?

awediot

06-02-2006, 06:37 PM

Dew, good to hear. Be back with ya...

I'm not sure what the 'its' in the sentences above refers to exactly, though my take on these matters is that the way we see what we see is part and parcel of seeing. Depending on where you are, you 'either' see the forest 'or' the trees. Back up enough 'and' you see 'both'. That's why I love the paintings of Vermeer. His canny use of perspective delights the eye without sacrificing any detail.

Sure. We all have the same basic component parts in our heads, but it's how we use them that matters. Even the tin man learned that having a brain wasn't the important thing

To multi-level nit-pick, the Tin man wanted and got a heart (or a big watch actually), the scarecrow got the brain, unless the tin man thought the brain the scarecrow got was stupid. But and or that aside-just how exactly could one learn that having a brain wasn't that important? With what organ can this conclusion be drawn? That is my problem with much of "both And" thinking, as I comprehend it. It is an illusion... To decide the heart or emotions are preferable, is an intellectual declaration, that is self defeating because it undermines its own source. It is like claiming right and wrong are relative, as that is a more 'right' statement than to say the opposite, that they are absolute. Or, that open-mindedness is crucial, as that is quite a close-minded thing to say, and last or least, everything I say is a lie... A forest is a bunch of trees. They are noisy when they fall. One hand can't clap and I'm gunning for the Buddha 'cause thats what he taught me to do.

Backing up is the reductive process to define the basic components. That is the IT. If they are assumed or taken for granted or mistaken, then all that builds from them is doubtable and uncertain. How we use them doesn't in fact matter if we don't understand them first... "IT" is the piano scales you referred to earlier. ...prepare for a song...

I know you don't like the idea of Hell, but do you see how it is a logical possibility and basic component that should be at least accounted for, if not guarded against, and It is dismissed at a potential great peril? ...I am merely trying to understand what hoping for the best, and preparing for the worst really might entail...

Zerbie

06-02-2006, 06:57 PM

Dew, good to hear. Be back with ya...

To multi-level nit-pick, the Tin man wanted and got a heart (or a big watch actually), the scarecrow got the brain, unless the tin man thought the brain the scarecrow got was stupid. But and or that aside-just how exactly could one learn that having a brain wasn't that important? With what organ can this conclusion be drawn? That is my problem with much of "both And" thinking, as I comprehend it. It is an illusion... To decide the heart or emotions are preferable, is an intellectual declaration, that is self defeating because it undermines its own source. It is like claiming right and wrong are relative, as that is a more 'right' statement than to say the opposite, that they are absolute. Or, that open-mindedness is crucial, as that is quite a close-minded thing to say, and last or least, everything I say is a lie... A forest is a bunch of trees. They are noisy when they fall. One hand can't clap and I'm gunning for the Buddha 'cause thats what he taught me to do.

Backing up is the reductive process to define the basic components. That is the IT. If they are assumed or taken for granted or mistaken, then all that builds from them is doubtable and uncertain. How we use them doesn't in fact matter if we don't understand them first... "IT" is the piano scales you referred to earlier. ...prepare for a song...

I know you don't like the idea of Hell, but do you see how it is a logical possibility and basic component that should be at least accounted for, if not guarded against, and It is dismissed at a potential great peril? ...I am merely trying to understand what hoping for the best, and preparing for the worst really might entail...

I was with ya til the last paragraph. It's like you go beyond what goes beyond. Ya know? The kind of fundamentalism to which I resonate myself.

But back up - whoa! Explain that last paragraph. How is the idea of Hell a logical possibility? You mean the actuality of a (physical?) hell is a logical possibility? Or what kind of Hell? Where? When? As one who honestly never "clicked" to any talk/ideas/whatever about "Hell" I need to have this explained like I'm 5 years old, because I truly will be hearing it for the first time.

What do you mean Hell is a basic component??? :confused:

Can you explain the whole thing from Kindergarten level on upwards?

awediot

06-02-2006, 07:22 PM

Zerb,
a few posts back I said how the sense of the after life could feel positive or negative. It is simply the opposite of the Heaven state. The yin and yan separating, taking us to one side or the other, rather than merging together (which I see as a sludge). If we see all as half good/half evil, and embrace that shadow self of negativity, thinking it makes us whole, evil is delighted, good is polluted, and the negative wins... Half bad is one hell of alot of bad.

The All is God makes God out to be quite a SOB... In my neck of the woods we recently had some thugs braking into humane societies, stealing specifically puppies, dowsing them with lighter fluid, setting them ablaze and tossing them out car windows. This went on for weeks and quite a few survived... Just pure cruelty and mindless evil... That in no stretch of my imagination is of God. Is it worthy of being sent to Hell? That is not the question, but where might such a mind that refuses to accept the demands of kindness of God, go to? He doesn't sadistically torture, but he leaves us to our own devices as we demand, and it is called Hell...

awediot

06-02-2006, 09:44 PM

James, I don't understand your conflict... being created in the Image of God, or having a likeness to It, simply means sharing some of its characteristics. An image or likeness is not the thing... "All are made in the image of God, but all fall short of the glory of God." as a starting point couldn't be clearer...Why we fall short/Original Sin... another thing.

Is there such a thing as a benevolent theocracy?

So much of this question depends on ones meaning of benevolent, or good, kind and charitable. It has been said if moral law were followed, man's law would be unnecessary. I believe this, but that still begs the question "who's" moral law? Was it kinder to allow Schivo to starve to death naturally (a painful, agonizing and slow way to die) or keep her alive like a Borg indefinitely, euthanize her in under a minute or was hooking her up to machines in the first place where it all went awry? All who believe in one, the other or none, do so out of kindness...

A quick thought: No one ever seeks pain or evil. Evil cannot exist on its own. It is always good corrupted. Hitler had very noble and loving goals to help the human race, Jeffry Dahmer loved those boys and wanted to keep them near him, Andrea Yates was trying to save her children from an evil world, Christians really are trying to point out the dangers of Hell, and even more mundane rapes, murders, beating and just cruelties are done, if not out of love for the seeming benefit of correcting or teaching the victim a lesson, then done for the perpetrator's pleasure. They may be sadistic and get joy or benefit from the pain of another, but that pain is the means to joy, it is never the end in mind. Even a masochist who finds pleasure through pain, will still go to the dentist to get relief from a toothache... If pain is desired, is ceases to be actual pain and is called something else... This is why I take the God is love, and claims of doing good with a rock of salt.
...So your question, yes, but man is in no position to create it. Until Christ walks among again, we are called to eternally try.

I seem to be wired to see things in terms of balancing opposites.

To elaborate a little on what is implied as opposites in the Heaven/Hell post. I do not believe in a dualistic reality. God has no opposite. Satan is opposite to Michael, not God. Evil is a brief perversion that should be fought off and slaughtered at every appearance. I think that those who talk of balancing their light and dark "sides", or embracing their negative half, really put little thought into how horrendous the results of that would be. There is no balance. Make it all Good.

I would agree totally that a spirituality that is not seriously grounded, rooted, in some tradition is doomed to wander aimlessly and exhibit exactly the qualities you describe. I don't believe that it sets itself up with
destroying Christian absolutes as a primary goal.

An open-ended, MSTR view, depends solely on the education, imagination and mood of the one adhering to it, and their ability to turn on a dime. Statements of absolutes directly challenge the uncertainty needed to retain indecision. Whether Christian or not, saying anything like: "this is the way it Is" directly assaults those who hold dear to their grey area. The speaker is instantly labeled arrogant, closed-minded and simplistic... The more spiritual than religious moniker is a new name for a basically agnostic/pantheistic view. It is Newer New-Age, sans the gadgets and bobbles, but the underlieing philosophy is the exact same and its ancient...

Daniel

06-02-2006, 09:55 PM

To multi-level nit-pick, the Tin man wanted and got a heart (or a big watch actually), the scarecrow got the brain, unless the tin man thought the brain the scarecrow got was stupid.

Awediot- Yes. You are right. This gay fan of the Wizard of Oz got his characters mixed up and blew his metaphorical punch line. Damn! And I thought I was being so witty. It is the Scarcrow. I could while away the hours....

But and or that aside-just how exactly could one learn that having a brain wasn't that important? With what organ can this conclusion be drawn? That is my problem with much of "both And" thinking, as I comprehend it. It is an illusion... To decide the heart or emotions are preferable, is an intellectual declaration, that is self defeating because it undermines its own source. It is like claiming right and wrong are relative, as that is a more 'right' statement than to say the opposite, that they are absolute. Or, that open-mindedness is crucial, as that is quite a close-minded thing to say, and last or least, everything I say is a lie... A forest is a bunch of trees. They are noisy when they fall. One hand can't clap and I'm gunning for the Buddha 'cause thats what he taught me to do.

Yes. Perhaps EVERYTHING is an ILLUSION. But that's the Eastern view of things, is it not? Not Orthodox. Bad. Perhaps Evil. Out of the Box. Don't go down THAT road. There are giants waiting to squash one. Whatever you do don't go Into THOSE Woods. Ah!!!!!!!!

Having perspective is slmply that. It isn't claiming that 'right and wrong are 'relative'. Not by a long shot (or view). Perspective sees right and wrong for what is it. And by what means does this perspective arise? Who, or what, is it that perceives these concepts? I would say the mind. Or Mind. Whatever IT is, Christianity, as expressed in its exoteric form, doesn't readily address this kind of inquiry very well. Does that mean Christianity is inadequate? No. But the bible, as I see it, isn't the answer to all our questions. (I can hear the rocks whizzing my way from the arch-conservatives.) But then, you know that I'm not a literalist.

Gunning for the Buddha? Hey! I ain't gunning for anyone. I'm not into sports. At heart, I work at being a good student. I'm happy to learn from any and every perspective. Steal from the very best, that's what I say. Hey! The great composers did it. They even stole from themselves. Does that mean I have a big ol' mishmash of a faith? No. In actual practice I'm as monogamously oriented as I am with my husband. I don't flit from Tree to Tree.

Backing up is the reductive process to define the basic components.

This sounds very much like perspective here.

That is the IT. If they (the components) are assumed or taken for granted or mistaken, then all that builds from them is doubtable and uncertain. How we use them (components) doesn't in fact matter if we don't understand them first... "IT" is the piano scales you referred to earlier. [I]...prepare for a song...

I've inserted what I think you are referring to above- which clarifies things a bit more I think for me. I do wish you would lead your reader by the hand a bit more, if you please. All too often there is too much effort in figuring out the objects from the subjects.

Yes. There are scales. And there is the manner in which one plays the scales. A distinctly separate issue called technique. On top of that there is the the matter of making music, which infers layer upon layer of subtilty piled high to the heavens. Layers that must be unified into a simple action. The talented but overly ambitious student takes everything in one gulp and figures out matters as he or she goes. He/she stumbles more than he/she soars. The really smart ones get their technique down cold so that every problem encountered yields to patient and persistent attention.

I know you don't like the idea of Hell, but do you see how it is a logical possibility and basic component that should be at least accounted for, if not guarded against, and It is dismissed at a potential great peril? ...I am merely trying to understand what hoping for the best, and preparing for the worst really might entail...

It's not that I don't like the idea of hell. I just don't think that it is a very good motivational tool. (Ha!) Short term results and very little lateral thinking involved there. I don't care if it IS real, it's a very very poor teaching tool. What kind of cruel god slaps your hand before you reach out, telling you that you better watch you step? You would never do that with the piano student. You'd show them WHAT to do first. Hell! Everyone knows what to avoid- they hear how bad they play at first. The trick is to get better, not worry about how bad you are. If the reward at the end is punishment not matter what you do, why bother? Just give up now and be really really bad.

Mae West: When I'm good, I'm good, but when I'm bad I'm better. At least she had a sense of humor!

Have you seen the drawings and paintings by Goya? That, to me, is an accurate description of hell. And guess what? It's all man made. Who needs God when we can do it ourselves! I don't discount hell, or even hold it at arms length. As it is, I think we're all very familiar with hell. The gay man who hasn't really dealt with his sexuality is experiencing a very personal hell, wouldn't you say? I've had a very up close look at that, enough so that I can see it in the eyes of someone who is faking their way through it. Why? I saw that same terrified look in my own. Facing that hell, at least for me, meant sitting on a cushion and getting some of that vaunted perspective I am so apt to yak about. The Be Still and Know That I Am God thought helped me get a hell of a lot of traction in facing IT.

dewdrop_world

06-02-2006, 09:59 PM

I know you don't like the idea of Hell, but do you see how it is a logical possibility and basic component that should be at least accounted for, if not guarded against, and It is dismissed at a potential great peril? ...I am merely trying to understand what hoping for the best, and preparing for the worst really might entail...
"It is dismissed at a potential great peril"... sounds a bit like an updated version of Pascal's wager :D

I know there's more behind your words... still, the family resemblance triggers a doubletake :eek:

James

awediot

06-02-2006, 10:16 PM

Yeeeks... http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/686.gifDon't just zero in on Hell. I don't find it a great motivator, nor feel God holds it over any one for compliance. Its way more subtle than that and very little of my piling texts...

Daniel

06-02-2006, 10:31 PM

awediot

06-02-2006, 10:45 PM

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/teu81.gif

She won't let me... rather party with the sinners than cry with the saints I guess... Let Her be scornethed!

Daniel

06-02-2006, 10:45 PM

Ok. Back to the topic at hand. Theocracy is hell on wheels. How's that for a realization? (Gotta tie this digression in somehow, don't ya think?) Where do we go from here?

awediot

06-02-2006, 10:49 PM

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/sehrgrosse/large-smiley-006.gif Can try some of my annoying, hellish, "smileys" out in real life???

Daniel

06-02-2006, 10:56 PM

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/sehrgrosse/large-smiley-006.gif Can try some of my annoying, hellish, "smileys" out in real life???

Awediot! You are one hell of a guy! The guy who gets you gets a lot. And that's a compliment. Really. You've confessed to hating all the stroking that goes on around here, but secretly, I think you eat it up big time. You've got the courage of your convictions and heart, which you are loath to display, perhaps in waiting for the right guy....and I don't blame you one damn bit!

Daniel

06-03-2006, 08:44 AM

Here's a thought provoking piece from a writer on the Huffington Post (yeah...liberal that I am...I find interesting things there). RJ Eschow puts pins in the hyposcrisy of Campus Crusade for Christ as they mount an effort in Iraq. What does this have to do with Theocracy in America? A great deal according to the author, though he doesn't use this term. The nexus of faith, politics and greed is a very strange one.

The Evangelighouls - How The Christian Right Exploits War's Youngest Victims: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-evangelighouls-how-_b_22117.html

Here's a little background on the Campus Crusade and its founder, Bill Bright. As Sara Diamond writes in her book, "Spiritual Warfare":

"In April 1976, Sojourners, a progressive evangelical magazine, published a report on a series of secret meetings convened by key Christian Right leaders . ... A meeting ... to solidify the financial base for Third Century Publishers was convened by Arizona Congressman John Conlan and Bill Bright, president of Campus Crusade for Christ ... The initial publications "were directed at manipulating Christians to accept political action as part of Christian thought." In 1975 a meeting was convened by Bright and Conlan to "train regional director in Third Century's strategy to gradually take positions of leadership with the government." Conlan told regional directors that Bill Bright would be working behind the scenes with his Christian business contacts to secure financing ..."

The Campus Crusade has been heavily funded by right-wing extremist billionaire Nelson Bunker Hunt. Hunt, a dedicated John Bircher, was convicted of conspiracy for his criminal behavior in manipulating (and ultimately devastating) the international silver market. This paragon of Christian virtue joined with Bright and Conlan with the goal of creating a right-wing, fundamentalist, extremist government. It was a wild-eyed plan - but it succeeded.

dewdrop_world

06-03-2006, 09:49 PM

James, I don't understand your conflict... being created in the Image of God, or having a likeness to It, simply means sharing some of its characteristics. An image or likeness is not the thing... "All are made in the image of God, but all fall short of the glory of God." as a starting point couldn't be clearer...Why we fall short/Original Sin... another thing.

It's not so much a conflict as the feeling that nobody really understands this statement until she is really in touch with the God-likeness and simultaneously in touch with the shortcomings also. I'm not talking about cognitive understanding, in the sense of fitting the propositions into a religious/philosophical framework. What I mean is, when you pray, can you sense the God - likeness within you? Can you sense your shortcomings in the same visceral way?

I don't think the statement means much if it isn't felt at the core of your being. For myself, I get occasional glimpses of it in meditation sometimes, but I don't live in that place very often.

So much of this question depends on ones meaning of benevolent, or good, kind and charitable. It has been said if moral law were followed, man's law would be unnecessary. I believe this, but that still begs the question "who's" moral law?

That's a fine response -- I intended it as an open ended question for discussion, since I sure don't have an answer!

Does moral law serve the same purpose as, for example, judicial law? Judicial law places the rights of victims, and the innocent, ahead of the rights of the guilty (though, ostensibly, not ahead of the rights of the accused). There are good reasons for doing so. But what good is moral law if it is not to elevate all of us? Obviously moral law should not condone everything, but it can't approach truth if it doesn't take to heart the perspectives of those whom it purports to govern. That's where more traditional forms of Christianity get it wrong -- they think the biblical code is more important than understanding people. That's evidence in how they treat gay people.

Now, to shift gears and consider murderers for example, we catch them and lock them up in recognition of the horror of their deeds, but at that point the vessel is broken and someone has to pick up the pieces. "Lock them up and throw away the key" is not an adequate response. They need to be led out of the state of sin (separation from God, suffering), which I think will always involve listening to them as they are. This may wind up informing human understanding of moral law, in that we might make it a task to alleviate the conditions that lead people to become murderers.

That isn't the American way, but... somebody has to dream it before it can become reality.