laleo

Well, George, if there is such a thing as a rabid agnostic, I think you're it. In answer to, Why should I? and, Why bother? I tend to wonder what it is about the heavens that has caused man, from the time of creation, to fall to his knees in fear and amazement. I don't think it's so much an appeal to reason that propels people toward spirituality, but the longing for something more meaningful. A long time ago, my husband was watching a movie when I walked into the room to get something. I don't know what the movie was about, but I walked into a dialogue that was so filled with yearning, I had to stop and watch. A younger male character was beseeching an older male character, somewhere in the middle of a desert, it looked like. I don't know what the crisis was all about, but the actor managed to perfectly express a universal discontent that would likely never be satisfied. I didn't stick around long enough to know how the older (paternal?) character responded, but I saw enough to recognize the script. Most likely the older character answered with some combination of empathy, and his own resignation to a perpetual unknowing, while the younger character was left to navigate his own way through the usual assortment of cosmic betrayals, and tenacious hopes. Anyway, those are the type of stories that make up the Bible, from what I can tell.

George: That was really funny. I needed a laugh. I intended to answer, but then I got distracted, and the moment seemed to pass. I apologize. Here goes. The Santa analogy is fine, if that's who you aspire to be. But you don't. You just trivialize Christ by comparing him to Santa. I think it's apples and oranges and a horse of a different color. As far as the wisdom found in the Bible, you seem to have adopted Wierwille's maxim that it's either all God's Word or none of it is, and if it's wrong in one place, the whole thing falls apart. I'm not ready to reject the entire thing simply because Wierwille happened to offer a nutty interpretation, but, having said that, I also don't have any more patience than you do in ferreting out the little morsels of wisdom that might be found amid all the hyperbole. However, I am grateful for those little pieces of miracles, and moments of faith that occasionally come my way. Nothing banal or insipid about your post. I appreciate your input. Thanks. So what do you have planned for tomorrow? Who's cooking the feast? Happy Thanksgiving.

Oh, satori, I am so shattered. How bad is it? I was hoping for one of those dazzling, sappy, touching, superficial Christmas stories that make for a good family outing, especially for kids (ages 13, 15, and 20) who have long outgrown the story, but still love it anyway. Did you see the 3D version or the regular? Would it make any difference?

Well, George, speaking of treatises, you should know better than to ask me any hypothetical questions, because you're going to get a treatise in return. And since I don't really know the answers, that means I'm going to take up that much more space with an attempt to answer by asking you a few hypotheticals in return. Feel free to answer. I'm interested in hearing your perspective, if you care to offer it. Your questions (though not in the order that you posed them): Given that there is scant evidence that there ever even was a man named "Jesus of Nazareth" that performed wonderful miracles and made a couple of feel-good sermons, doesn't some attempt to "follow" after him and try to imitate his actions ring just a little bit hollow?(WWJD?) Hollow? Only when the answer to the question (WWJD?) is imposed. Otherwise, I think it's good and healthy to have role models. Sometimes we get to the point in life when old coping methods don't work, when whatever shelter we've built for ourselves no longer protects us from the elements. It's not that we're necessarily trying to find our path in the midst of a raging thunderstorm, so cold and wet and stunned that we can't see far enough in front of us to have any sense of which direction might lead us out (which would probably be the conditions that bring on the crisis conversion so many religious writers seem to experience). More often, life is just misty and gray, and during those times, a role model comes in handy. Maybe not Jesus, if he offends you. But when you're faced with a frustrating job, or an angry spouse, or demanding children, or any myriad of life's annoyances, I think it helps to ask: What would Confucius say? Or, What would a caring father or a loving mother do now? Or, What would Buddha think? Most of those people are ideals rather than reality, but they help to anchor us, don’t you think? Why not just formulate a workable philosophy from the voluminous amount of treatises (sp?) that are available? Or, better yet, figure out a workable system of ethics for yourself? Not a bad idea. But most of those philosophers are way over my head, losing me in their tautological truisms and logical syllogisms. I don’t much care about categorical prepositions, or if A is not A, fascinating though it all is. And the study of ethics (which, thankfully, is pragmatic enough for my feeble brain to comprehend) doesn't generally concern itself with hope and joy and forgiveness. As helpful as it is to have a yardstick to go by to measure the rightness or wrongness of an action, it doesn't measure the heart. (an age noted for it's enlightenment?) I don't know if you read, followed, or posted on that thread by RG and catcup on forgiveness, but as I read along, I thought it was a case study in miscommunication, GreaseSpot dynamics, and revenge. From the Vedas to Moses to the Tao to Martin Luther King, Jr. -- any religious leader or religious writing with any credibility, any longevity, extols the virtue of forgiveness. They even require it. Why? Is it because they're all so ignorant and superstitious that they don't know the value of vindictiveness and sorrow? Or did those ancient people have a map to the soul long before there was such a thing as science? Are they really so wrong when it comes to human motivations and longings? Just what is it about THE BIBLE that commands respect and veneration anyway? Is it really that compelling a work? When you think about how much influence it's had in shaping the world, I'd have to say, Yes, although my interest in it has waned. I'm not up for any Bible studies. At least not yet. Why cleave to Christianity at all? I don't know.

Knuckles: I'm working my way through his dialogue with Chuck Colson about the evils of postmodernism, but I haven't finished it yet. I haven't made it to the article you mentioned. What was honest, thought-provoking, and refreshing about it?

A friend of mine is leading a book discussion group at the local Methodist Church, and she invited me to join in. It's for people who have lost their faith, or are in the process of redefining it, along with a reassessment of their concept of Christianity. We met this Wednesday evening to get acquainted, and to discuss the introduction and Chapter 1 of A New Kind of Christian by Brian McLaren. I'm not sure what I think of it all yet, other than that McLaren has found a niche in the market and has done well for himself as a post-modern Christian. Other than that, he seems to be making a sincere effort to open a dialogue between "liberal" and "conservative" Christians, drawing the best from both, from what I can tell. He begins his "testimonial" with a crisis of faith, and talks about his experience as a minister and how he lost sight of God, if he ever even recognized his presence to begin with. (How come every "religious" book I've read in the past couple of years, which admittedly isn't many, but, still, they all start out with the narrator experiencing some combination of desperation, despair, and depression. Is this somehow a mandatory first step to spiritual awareness? Not only does it read like a clich?it makes the first step of the journey unappealing.) McLaren describes his reader as someone who is filled with “sincerity, goodwill, intelligence, and a desire to become a better person and help create a better world.” I don’t know if that’s me or not, but it pretty much describes most Christians I’ve known. I wonder what it is about Christianity, and maybe religion in general, that appeals to the best in people. I’d like to think that most people, religious or not, are goodnatured, sincere, and, if not intelligent, at least stable and likable. They probably are, but many (not all) of the people I’ve known who describe themselves as atheists tend toward cynicism, self-indulgence, and even self-destruction. Why is that? Anyway, I've looked (briefly) at McLaren’s website, read the first two chapters of his book, and am curious if anyone here is familiar with his work.

lindyhopper: I don't object to any of the points you have made. I'm not so sure of Zixar's point either. Oakspear gave a good summary a page or two ago, and pointed out some things I had missed or glossed over. Am I giving Zixar too much credit? Maybe. But at least he's presenting an argument (along with a few insults), and not just a blanket condemnation of what he might deem to be the opposing view. Anyway, teleporting and electrons are way over my head, and beyond my interest level, so I'll leave this to you guys to figure out. Carry on. sirguessalot: Like I said already, your opinions and experience are not "hard on the ears," at least not on my ears. What is difficult for me to accept is your pronouncements against Christians. When you arbitrarily decide what "most" Christians do or do not believe, it is a far cry from announcing what you do or do not believe, and your reasons for your own belief and/or unbelief. Again, I wouldn't object at all if you were talking about your own experience of Christianity -- if you are identifying yourself as once being a greedy, gluttonous, violent, wasteful Christian, I wouldn't object. Instead, you are identifying current, practicing Christians as such, simply because they are Christian. That is my objection. For what it's worth.

Cynic: "Cushy positions" sounds fine by me, but only if I get to pick out the upholstery on the cabinets. George: I'm going to print out your suggested itinerery. I'll make it there sooner or later. In the meantime, keep me posted on your travels.

George, I hope you're keeping a journal at home as a rough draft for your travel book, or at least hanging onto your posts, to give you inspiration later when its time to start sending out query letters in pursuit of a publisher. I'd love to go to Japan. Honest. But the older I get the more I'm turning into my grandmother, who contentedly stayed close to home in her later years. Except her "later years" began in her eighties, so I'm getting a head start. Actually, before then she traveled extensively. This fall is out of the question. My 83 year-old father-in-law is facing by-pass surgery in a couple of weeks, so we're going up to stay with him for awhile, after we take our daughter back to school. Don't you have kids in college? How can you afford to go out to eat, much less travel the world? Send me a postcard.

sirguessalot: "And whom have I condemned to anything?" Well, in the first paragraph of your post dated Aug 28, 4:38 PM you describe American Christianity (and by default, American Christians) as "sickeningly contrary" to the reality of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, as you understand those concepts. In fact, you say that the "masses" (of those who identify themselves as Christian) are too ignorant, too arrogant, too greedy, too irresponsible, too violent, too disgustingly Christian to begin to understand, much less live, in virtue. (FYI, neither "atonement" nor "purification" are virtues.) You say that these same Christians use Jesus as a scapegoat, having no genuine faith. In answer to your question, you have condemned those who identify themselves as Christian, as not being genuinely Christian. And you didn't stop there. You went on and on and on and on, as if you know their motivations (none of them good). You insult those who take their faith seriously. "At whose expense have I elevated myself?" Christians. "I can understand why Zix doesn't offend you. You obviously share many of the same beliefs. Seems natural then, right?" What is obvious to you isn't so obvious to me. I don't understand most of Zix's beliefs, so I don't know if I share them or not. Having said that, I appreciate his straightforwardness as opposed to your deviousness. "When I speak of this Christianity, I speak from a lot of ugly and wonderful experiences with it. How can you honestly deny me that?" If you were speaking only for yourself, and relating your own experience, I would "deny" you nothing. Instead, you first misrepresent, then ridicule, the faith of others, as if you are in a position to know. "Someone asked "why not Christianity." Seems an important ex-way discussion. Nothing personal. Why make it so?" I have no objection to the thread topic. Yes, it is an important question. But you are the one who made it personal when you judged the faith and the conscience of those who identify themselves as Christian. Maybe you should answer your own question: Why make it personal? Case in point: "I just wish Christianity would change for the better and do some atoning and explore its roots a bit deeper. Cuz its probably never going away, and right now, its making a lot of people real sick and dead (or is simply incapable of helping as effectively as Christ himself taught)." You indicate here that you have a truer, better, deeper understanding of Christ and Christianity than do professing and practicing Christians, who are promulgating sickness and death. This is arrogance. Also, you are speaking for Jesus in your posts. Has he authorized you to do so?

George: Was that during your flight home from that truly awful trip to Thailand? It pained me to read about it. I think it's time for you to stay put for awhile. So what happened next on the plane? Never mind whether you became suddenly acquainted with God, did you recover enough to walk out of the plane? Come to think of it, I had a "death bed" experience, too, last spring. I was sitting in front of my computer at work, when some sort of weird strobe light thing started happening, and there were flashing lights everywhere. I recalled reading somewhere that having a stroke involves some sort of vision disturbance, so I figured that must be what was happening. I had the same thoughts you did. If I was going to die, I wanted to be in my own house. So I drove home (it's only a few blocks), climbed into bed, and waited for death to come. No angels. No white light. No communing with God. Just silence, and the promise of death. After an hour, I felt fine, so I went back to work. And here I am. Oakspear: Maybe you're right. I'll read the genesis of the "death bed" analogy later. It sounds like an interesting theory, though, no matter the origin. Speaking of mental contortions, condemnation, and arrogance, in my opinion, Zix has nothing on sirguess. Not that you were making a comparison, but I don't find Zixar nearly so offensive as sirguessalot's haughty appraisal of people and ideals he knows so little about, and seems to understand even less.

Hey Oakspear, Maybe Zixar's style is getting in the way of what he's saying (geez, Zix, don't they have a finishing school down your way that still has a few openings for the fall semester?). It seems to me that what Zixar is saying is that belief in God is something that is visceral or primal. In other words, the question over the existence of God isn't an academic question. Faith either exists in a person or it doesn't, and it is often discovered during a time of crisis (i.e. "death bed"). I don't hear him saying that when it comes to an intellectual consideration of God, no gray area exists. What I hear him saying is that at the moment life brings you to your knees, you will either know God or you won't. What do you think of this theory? Does a rational understanding of God bring anyone any closer to God? Or is God pure experience?

I can't think of a better endorsement for any religion.

No, I haven't read the book you mention, but if you scoll down to the week of March 28, Sound and Spirit did a show on the trickster that you might enjoy. At least I liked it when it was broadcast however many months ago. I've never studied paranormal activity, but in literature, the trickster is the character whose presence is meant to disrupt. Tricksters don't generally try to amass power, but rather usurp it for its own sake. Just because. A trickster is often a comic figure, but subversive. Definitely subversive. I don't think I've ever read a story that included a trickster who had paranormal skills. At least in American literature, the trickster is the unruly, often contradictory, character who overthrows the established order. Funny and shrewd, but still of this earth. I don't know about how the trickster functions in world mythology, but I would think some of the attributes are the same, except maybe with a little more magic.

Abigail: I agree with you if what you are saying is that not every adherent of a particular religion is going to accept everything about that particular belief system. But as far as the religion itself goes, surely you must see a difference in the religions, else why would you decide to study Judaism rather than Shintoism? Don't you make any distinction between the two? Oakspear: So why are the rich and powerful rich and powerful? Have you come up with any theories, religious or otherwise? How does the Mother Goddess explain this?

"But to me, the biggest contradiction is the difference between the bloody tribal god of the OT and the god of love and forgiveness in the NT. " Oakspear: I wonder how much of the "bloody tribal god" of the OT is simply an attempt to explain the distribution of power. For instance, our first self-help guru, Aristotle, tried to explain why some people prosper or flourish, and others don't. If memory serves, he came up with the theory that people flourish because of a combination of a good birth, good luck, and virtue, then he provided a formula for following virtue, so more people could flourish. I wonder if the OT was trying to explain why some have power and others do not. For instance, if I'm remembering correctly, the reason why Job had so many riches, and a good reputation, and a large family, was because God had somehow favored him. The Way's explanation, as I recall it, is that God favors those who have a "good heart." In other words, anyone with good intentions will be in God's good graces, no matter what they actually accomplish. That's why David, and others, were chosen to be kings, right? (I'm really rusty on this stuff.) Anyway, I wonder how much of the tribal stuff had to do with the belief that those who were strongest, or had the most power, should be revered because they (obviously) had found some sort of favor with God, else they wouldn't be so strong and powerful. Care to speculate?

Abigail, I didn't mean to imply that other religions aren't diverse. Christianity, and maybe Buddhism, too, seem the most malleable, maybe because they tend to be missionary religions, reaching out to the four corners of the earth, absorbing other cultures. Ethnic religions, like Judaism and Hinduism, for instance, tend to be a little more fixed, but that's not to say there isn't a lot of variety within them. I think there are a lot of superficial similarities in religion. Most religious people try to be good, and most religions provide a path, which is maybe what you mean when you talk about ethical similarities. But the path to goodness seems to me to be drastically different, rituals aside. There are very fundamental differences among the religions regarding the nature and definition of reality, which translates into passivity and detachment in some religions, not so in others. Speaking of Judaism, I think there is a lot to like about it. (I enjoyed your tree analogy, by the way.) My mother converted about ten years ago or so, and I've enjoyed my visits (few though they've been) to the synagogue with her. Speaking of fundamental differences, as I understand it, it was Judaism which introduced the idea of a universal morality, and kept the idea afloat through practice and tradition. Since the concepts of good/evil, right/wrong form the basis of this religion, and it follows that humans are required to do what is good/right, then any evil/wrong can be corrected, unlike the concepts of karma or fate, which have the gods determining the outcomes in life, no matter their moral value. In other words, as I understand it, Jews believe that morality is a human endeavor, powered (not thwarted) by God, therefore able to be accomplished. Plus, since the story of Judaism (almost) begins with the children of Israel in slavery to the Egyptians, empathy for the politically oppressed, and a strong belief in justice, seems rooted in Jewish culture. In fact, suffering (oppression) for a Jew is something that can be corrected or avoided, rather than accepted, because it is a human condition, brought about by humans who do not act ethically, rather than a spiritual condition that is mandated by the gods. So that's one fundamental difference that comes to mind which translates into very different ethical systems for different religions.

Oakspear: I intended to post on your Why Christianity? thread, but then it took off so quickly that I had a hard time keeping up with its many directions. Here's my take on some of your thoughts posted here, not that I'm a big defender of Christianity, but I think I am more Christian than any other religion. I've gone from being a fanatic, to rejecting it altogether, to dipping my toes back into the water and becoming a partial or almost Christian, depending on the definition. 1. The Bible: I think of the Bible as a collection of writings within a specific tradition, written from a religious perspective. The themes are relatively consistent, for instance, the OT seems to reflect on different aspects of justice, while the NT maybe focuses more on love and forgiveness. Anyway, I hadn't read the Bible for years and years until GS, then I re-read a few sections, like Job and Ecclesiastes, for one thread or another, and really enjoyed those books, reading them from an entirely different perspective than I had before. I don't think the Bible is perfect or complete, or offers a final answer to our many perplexing questions, but I do like the God who is described in the Bible, as opposed to the gods of so many other religions. I don't think the Bible does much to prove the existence of God, but rather assumes faith in God. There is wisdom and poetry in the pages. While I don't credit it with being literally true, I don't discount it either. 2. Personal Experience. I don't put a lot of weight on personal experience, my own or others. I tend to like having both feet planted in the here and now. I'm not interested in angels and crystals and demons and heaven and karma, or even miracles, unless we're talking about the miracle of kindness. Then I'm interested. 3. The Doctrine. I actually like the idea of redemption and atonement and all that. In fact, that's what I like about Christianity -- the idea that we all have second chances, over and over again. We aren't stuck on a predetermined path, or in an endless wheel of suffering, or caught in a futile battle between the gods. There is always hope, the promise of redemption. I think there is a striking difference between the religions, between Hinduism and Islam, or between Confucius and pagan rituals. They each offer a slightly unique worldview. At its best, I think religion acts as a vehicle for human goodness, a way to transport it into the world for the good of others, doing collectively more than what one person can do individually, and I think some religions accomplish this better than others. For instance, there's an inherent futility to Hinduism that I find unattractive. I don't care for Islam because of its unforgiving and demanding nature. Just like some ideas are better than others, some opinions more sound, I think some religious traditions are superior to others (which isn't to say that I think any religion should be mandated, just that some might be more desirable). Christianity is probably the most diverse of all the religions. There seems to be a sect within Christianity to accommodate practically every worldview. I do have more respect for the Bible than I do for, say, the Koran, or the Vedas, but I admit that that probably has to do with familiarity. From what little I have read of the Koran, and the Vedas, the Bible speaks to me on a more personal level than those other writings. I can relate more to it. One final question, when you say that "the bible is full of contradictions with the observed world as well as internal contradictions" what specifically do you mean?

Is this what you've been reading lately for entertainment? Well, I guess it has been more than a little slow around here. I thought "to the b*tch in line at Farenheit 9/11 last night . . . " was sort of amusing. For some reason it brought a flashback of standing in line for coffee at the ROA too early in the morning one year. Some leadership wannabe organized (or rather assigned) a few of us in front and behind him in line to be in a "believers' meeting" with him . I was smoking a cigarette and didn't even think to put it out, while he launched into a too-long prayer, then started calling on people for tongues and the rest of it. Afterward he blasted, and I mean blasted, me for smoking (as if there had ever been a prohibition against smoking up to that point). I wish I had thought to respond the way the Farenheit guy did. I almost saw Farenheit, but I don't do long lines anymore, so we saw Before Sunset instead. Probably the better choice, anyway. The lines for Farenheit are gone now, but now that I've heard so much about the movie, I think I've lost interest. If you enjoy the accidental humor that is born of frustration and outrage, and can laugh at the efforts of people who try a little too hard to turn it into something profound, think about picking up one of those books on tape of Garrison Keillor's Love Me -- about a best-selling author turned advice columnist who, after being hired by the New Yorker, ends up with writer's block. His efforts exceed those of the haiku you posted.

See, Raf, that's what I don't get. You're too smart for these sorts of grammatical contortions. Aren't you? Why does every dang word have to be taken so literally? I don't understand why it matters what Jesus might have known or not known at any given time. It doesn't change the gist of his message, which, summed up, is the Golden Rule. Besides, Jesus didn't have a preoccupation with the afterlife, or future events, as I understand it. His message was about the kingdom of God in the here and now. What prediction was he even making, other than that some of those standing with him would experience the kingdom of heaven? That was the idea: the kingdom of heaven on earth. Now. And another thing -- when it comes to grammar, proper grammar makes things easier to understand, not more difficult. It's not like if something is a participle, or in the dative case, it changes the whole structure and meaning of the passage, which only an English major would be able to ferret out. Grammar isn't the missing piece that explains a giant metaphysical puzzle. Why do you get caught up in these distortions of meaning?

Maybe I should have started with this poem, instead of the other. I think it's close to what you're saying. Anyway, thanks, simon. Glad you stopped in to offer your perspective. I enjoyed it.

I realize my mistake. My first post was written in incredulity, not condemnation. Sudo, you of all people, turning down a spoof. Here. I'll make it easy for you (do I have to read it out loud, too?): The comments following are every bit as funny as the movie review, because people didn't get it.

Yes, definitely it was funny. It was funny because they were so genuinely dense, in an earnest sort of way. Sudo: Did you read it? It's a quick read, actually. I think you'd laugh.

I don't know, satori. It's definitely funny, especially the original LOTR piece, but this little sparkle of insight didn't appear until page twelve: "I totally agree with this article, and also think that we should eat all of the babies in Ireland.... Anyone with the slightest semblance of intelligence should see that the article in question is obviously satirical... The author clearly had a wide knowledge of the LoTR trilogy (such as knowing that Aragorn is 80-some years old, along with the locations and names of most of the kingdoms of middle-earth.) The author obviously knows that tolkien wrote the books decades ago, but wrote otherwise in the name of humor." I mean, really, twelve pages later . . . I don't know whether it's funny or terrifying. At least I can console myself knowing that they're only musicians (what more can anyone possibly expect?). . . Geez. Right now, even as I write this, there are 336 "currently active users" on that board. How much can possibly be said by how many people about a guitar?

Well, Simon, here it is, barely noon, and you already have me in a contemplative state. I think Frost's point was that he wasn't any wiser for having chosen one path over the other, because he didn't know where the other led. Besides, Frost characteristically held regret at arm's length. He studied it from a distance, imagined what it would be like, but never really experienced it. Not that we all need to be like Frost. I understand what you're saying about the "personally fulfilling" path, and people get off the path when they're ready to, when it stops serving a purpose for them. However, when I read posts from, say, the CES types, or the Way-brainers, or whatever, I do feel embarrassed to think that I ever had anything in common with them, that I was ever so shallow, or looked at life with such simplicity. I can't even read the links without cringing, or take any of those tedious "teachings" seriously. Then I start wondering about the role of GreaseSpot, too, or, rather, my role here. I have less than a passing interest in the status of The Way -- I think just about everyone I ever knew has moved on, and those who haven't, I've long since lost my connection with -- and I sure don't have any compulsion to "save" anyone from his involvement. So what am I doing here? What are you doing here (if you don't mind my asking)? Is GS part of your path, too? How so? I think most (if not all) of my unfinished business was cleared up long ago. (I'm fast approaching the status of a Postaholic, so I need to start thinking about this stuff. I'm planning my twelve-step recovery process beforehand.) I don't think I got any closer to "the truth" for all my years of involvement in The Way. Honestly, the only thing that comes to mind right now that may have been a lasting benefit is their twisted teachings on "fear." Not that there was anything inherently useful or right about them, but, comparing myself with non-Way friends, I'm more likely to take chances, or small risks -- in little ways. I don't NOT do something because of discomfort, whereas others seem to me to be more susceptible to everyday anxieties. Anyway, that's one small thing that comes to mind, which may even be credited to genetics, for all I know. I don't know how wise or educated I am because of my involvement, though. Hard to judge. How are you wiser? More educated?