The hypocrisy of judging

When I watch television or read the news, I am so often saddened to see just what a judgmental people we have become. Sure, we have always judged one another, but as of late we seem to be seriously more vicious in our attacks.

We judge one another on a wide range of areas, race, gender, orientation, religion, financial status, education, clothing, speech, body-language, etc...

I take a lot of heat from my Christian friends (yes, I still have some, the ones that know its not personal). I am often accused of being anti-Christian, I am not. I tend to ride them tough since they are the dominant religious group in the United States. Riding Muslims hard would work if I lived in Saudi Arabia or some place that is an Islamic state, but in today's America the point would be completely missed by most.

Here is an example of one aspect of where Christianity is failing I think:


I will be the first to admit that I have some serious issues where it comes to the Westboro Baptist Church (frightening that the church's homepage is the "GodHatesFags.com" site). Surprisingly, my biggest issue with them is not their strong dislike of homosexuals or their completely tasteless tactics of protesting, but the use of their children in their protests. Hate is something that has to be taught, Denis Leary put it so well:


What chance do these children have to be anything more than their parents? I do not even want to think about the pain and anguish that one of their children will go through if they grow up and find themselves to be LGBTQ.

What does the Bible say about judging and the law

---

One of the most famous quotes from the Christian Bible on this subject is the King James Version of Matthew 7:1; "Judge not, that ye be not judged", but look at what follows it.

7 Do not judge and criticize and condemn others, so that you may not be judged and criticized and condemned yourselves.

2 For just as you judge and criticize and condemn others, you will be judged and criticized and condemned, and in accordance with the measure you [use to] deal out to others, it will be dealt out again to you.

3 Why do you stare from without at the very small particle that is in your brother’s eye but do not become aware of and consider the beam of timber that is in your own eye?

4 Or how can you say to your brother, Let me get the tiny particle out of your eye, when there is the beam of timber in your own eye?

5 You hypocrite, first get the beam of timber out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the tiny particle out of your brother’s eye.

Matthew 7:1-5 (AMP)
My experience is that this is proven true by the realization that what we dislike and hate in others, hence judge as wrong, are nothing but the reflection of what we dislike and hate within ourselves. No, I am not accusing the members of the Westboro Baptist Church of being homosexual (gay men everywhere are breathing a large sigh of relief).

Some say that we dislike and hate what we do not know and that causes fear, but I think that is more a response to our sense of lack in knowledge and experience and most people hate having fear within themselves.

People like the members of Westboro and sadly others who are just looking for justification for their distrust of anything different often use the Law of Moses and the Levitican Code as their weapon of choice.

They almost always pick and choose which parts are valid, the parts that address themselves are overlooked; their favorite foods (bacon, ham, shrimp and lobster), the availability of cheap cool clothing from Walmart (mixed threads), cheaper meats (non-Kosher), touching the skin of dead pigs (football), etc. My personal favorite is that I have yet to meet the Christian man who has the balls to put his wife out during her monthly menses.

It has become the common belief that the Law of Moses is there by God's direct intent, literally the will of God, but Jesus tells us that is not necessarily the case:

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Matthew 19:8 (KJV)
So we know that parts of the law are there by the knowing of Moses, not by God's decree, how do we determine which is which?

The answer is a few chapters away, Jesus not only tells us the basic framework for all the law , but gives us a direct key to its implementation:

35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Matthew 22:35-40 (KJV)
emphasis mine
If you apply the Law through the filter of Love, you will never use it as a tool of destruction against another, how would you honestly bludgeon your brother to death in the name of love?

Big and little "T" truths

In recent months, there has been an increase in the number of people asking how traditional religion and scripture can have any relevance in their lives since it has so many archaic ideas that do not translate into their day-to-day lives, the one most often asked of me is slavery.

This is the answer I gave on Facebook in a discussion on this exact topic, thanks to Chris DeMarco for starting and hosting this thread:

As a student of Comparative Religion and having read many scripture of many differing religions, including the Bible and Quran, one of the things that becomes obvious is that scripture must be placed into the context of the cultures in which they were written.

The Old Testament was written in the cultures at the end of the Bronze Age, including Nomadic, Judaic (as in the kingdom) and Egyptian amongst others. The New Testament is written from the cultural view of the Roman Empire and the Quran from the 7^th Century culture of Arabia.

Many followers of these religions think the rules and regulations that are handed down are the laws by which man is to live by for the rest of time, no. They are all examples of what constitutes a moral and ethical life in the times and places they were written.

For example, the slavery references are for their day. Today most of the world finds slavery to be abhorrent, but how one treats their slaves in a world where it is common-place, can be done ethically or not. When you place these "laws" into culture and time, they make sense, to a degree. Outside of their context, they seem primitive and they are.

Of course one day, the things we think of as "normal", moral and ethical may well be fairly primitive to our descendents, will we attempt to enforce our cultural ideals onto their world? We'll see when the next Religious Avatar comes along and creates the next great religion.

---

What most people are unaware if, is that there are two kinds of truth. Truth with a capital "T" is the ultimate Truth, it is the non-changing Truth, no matter what happens. Truth with a little "t" is the truth that changes, based on time, place and situation.

For example, Truth with a capital "T" is that you are a spiritual or energy being having a corporeal experience in a physical body.  This Truth never changes, it truly is eternal.

An example of truth with a little "t" would be that you are having that corporeal experience in the Roman Empire, with slavery is part of your daily existence.  How you treat those slaves in a moral and ethical fashion becomes truth with a little "t" because slavery will cease to be acceptable in the world that you live in, it is changed.

When looking at religion or scripture, remember that the Truth is always in there, even when it is obscured by the truths of the time and place it is written.

A Defense of Religion

I happen to be a fan of Bill Maher, I think he is fun and entertaining. I recently re-watched his film "Religulous" and also ran into a short series of interviews with Bill Moyers "on Faith & Reason", as well as a few other items and it started me thinking about the current views of many people regarding organized religion and what many religionists likely view as the new "War on Religion."

About the same time I ran across the following cartoon which really sums up the issues that many non-religious people have with organized religions and their followers:

Let's be honest with ourselves, Religion in many ways has asked for the harsh eye that has been placed on it in recent years. Religion has been used to justify every darkness that lies in the heart and soul of man and the more that one looks into it, the easier it becomes to question if Religion has any validity in the world.

Believers think that they are following the will of God as they see it, as such, they are not usually willing to negotiate their positions.  This is actually fine, believe what you will and act on it in YOUR life, and that is where most religionists lose the game.

Green Stamp Theology

---

People often try to spread the truth of their beliefs into the world and try to persuade others to act in accordance with what their religion teaches. There is often a problem with this in that those who are so busy "spreading the word" are not often as diligent in their practice of the word, I call this "Green Stamp Theology."

When I was a kid, my Mom would shop often at certain stores where they would give you "S&H Green Stamps" with each purchase. You would take the stamps and fill the books with them and then go to the redemption center and use them to buy items, an early customer rewards program.

As a theology, it works this way, it doesn't matter what I do as long as I can get   X   number of people to believe the way I do, I can buy my way into the eternity of the chosen. If you ask them, they will nearly always deny this, but this is the outcome of their actions.

Where Religions Lose It

---

I recently heard an interesting statement;

Religions are grand, lofty ideals.
Religious followers, now that's something else.

Fortunately, the problem is not the religions, but the followers. OK, I know you are wondering how this works...

We will use Christianity in this example, but it works for any religion.

Jesus taught a philosophy that made sense to him. He understood what he was trying to pass along to his followers and particularly his disciples. From the writings that have come down to us, I would say that John "got it" more than any other, at least from his writings.

Sadly, the many generations that followed have not understood it, but have done their best to keep it alive.  For the most part, they succeeded, the Gospel of John has survived 1800+ years and is still available to read and study today, now as to if the current interpretation of it has anything to do with the original, that may be another issue (thanks a lot Irenaeus).

As time goes on, those who understood the teacher passed on and left those who understood less and less of the original teaching. This is just the way things go, as time goes on, the teaching becomes a tradition and then a dogma. Once it becomes dogma it is etched in stone and any that attempt to reinterpret it are viewed as anathema.

Add to this the insertion of Ego that inevitably comes along, the teaching becomes "The Teaching" and sooner or later it goes from being a presentation of Truth to the "One and Only Truth" with all others being false gods and lies of whatever form evil takes, in Christianity it would be Lucifer, the Devil.

Religion's Saving Grace

---

Fortunately, there is a saving grace for religion in general, for those who truly seek it out and sift through all that gets piled on top of it, the original truth that was expressed by the teacher is still there. This core truth is often buried under dogmas and theologies, tradition and canon but to those who would search, they will find Truth.

⁷Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
⁸For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Matthew 7:7-8 (KJV)

Jesus said: "Recognize what is before your face and that which is hidden from the you will be revealed to you. For there is nothing hidden which shall not be made manifest, nor buried which shall not be raised."

Gospel of Thomas saying 5
This is the saving grace of Religion, if Truth is there, it will remain forever.

Time and tradition may pile on many things to the original source but if you will engage your heart and spirit and be willing to be a touch of an archeologist in your studies, you will reveal the Truth underneath. Turn your brain on, it was given to you for a reason. Pray and/or meditate on your studies, inspiration will almost always follow and point you in the right direction.

Religion is not really about "others" out there, but about YOUR relationship to the Creative Source of the Universe. It is your job to grow within that relationship, let others concern themselves with their growth.  Feel free to share knowledge with those that want it but never enforce your thoughts, beliefs or otherwise onto others, there is more than plenty of examples of how quickly that will fail in the world around us and sadly they are collectively called Religion.

To respect an adversary...

There are times when we really are given a glimpse into the world around us, as well as within ourselves, and get the chance to look at what it is that we respect and expect of ourselves, even when it takes you into strange places.

I recently heard about Barbara Walters' "10 Most Fascinating People of 2009" special which showed one of those apparent cultural inequalities that pop up on occasion. We hear about them, the glass ceiling for women in business, racial inequalities and similar issues, but Barbara really threw one in the face of her viewing audience.

On her special, she had an interview with Lady Gaga where there was a picture of her kissing another woman, no big issue, Madonna and Britney Spears kissed, Jessica Biel has and have you heard of Ellen DeGeneres?

I was later saddened when she interviewed Adam Lambert as the tone was completely different. Sure, at the AMAs he groped a female performer and kissed a male musician, but I've seen girls get groped and I've seen guys get kissed, why does it become raunchy and lewd when two guys kiss? They didn't seem to have a problem as far back as the 80s when we saw two guys kiss on Dynasty. Shame on you Barbara for not being even-handed in your presentation.

Sadly, not only did it really show me one of these cultural inequalities and decrease my level of respect for Barbara Walters, but it got me thinking about why I was losing that respect and exactly what I respect in others as well as myself. The big one that hit me was conviction and that's when I thought of "him".

There is a gentleman that I truly despise, for both what he says and how he says it, but I cannot help but respect him for his conviction to what he believes. The person at the center of this mental and moral dilemma is Pastor Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church, most infamously known for his GodHatesFags.com website and his church's protests at the funerals of Matthew Shepard and military dead.

I took a look at the GHF site for the first time in a long while and am glad to see that they apparently hired a web designer and modernized the site. It's about time...

So let's get into the guts of my issues with Pastor Phelps.

1. I completely disagree with his position on Homosexuality and I won't get into the particulars of my thoughts on his and many other interpretations of the Bible (I have gone through this in the last 2½ years on the blog so you can find it).
   
   I will say this, I am not a Jew and according to the Apostle Paul there is no requirement for me to be bound by the Law of Moses to follow Jesus.


2. Pastor Phelps believes in a theology called Absolute Predestination which states that there are those who come into the world, destined from birth to find salvation and the rest of us are outright ineligible.
   
   It is easily used to separate the "chosen" from the rest, I believe in a God that would at least make salvation available to all his creation.


3. I don't know if it is still on the site or not, but there used to be the following statement which tore through my heart and soul.

   God doesn't hate you because you are Gay,
   you're Gay because God hates you.

   I once sent them a question asking if Absolute Predestination was true and I'm already damned by God, since he made me gay, why deny me any semblance of happiness before my God ordained eternity in Hell begins?
   

As much as I might think he does the term Christianity a severe disservice and is a fountain of hate, I cannot help but respect his tenacity to stand up and be ridiculed (deserved or not) for what he believes.

There is a line from "The American President" that is so very appropriate for this discussion...

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight.

It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.

You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".

It is like the Indian Upanishads say about people and religions; there are 400,000 types of people all at different levels of spiritual evolution, no one religion will ever speak to all of them. This is why I always teach that no matter what form of religion or spiritual practice, as well as none that you might have, respect the differences you find around you as all learn at their own pace.

A true spiritual practice is about personal growth! Like it or not, ALL people are on their path of return to the source and will learn in their own time and pace. If you find yourself as a High School student, you don't hate the 3^rd grader for not knowing Shakespeare, you help him learn from where he is. Be that sign post for all around you.

WTF and Y?

I get asked many things by people, I seem to attract the questions. That's cool, I actually like it, usually.

One of the questions I get asked a lot, particularly by people that actually read what I write here and in other places, is just what kind of f'n trip am I on?

I have previously mentioned how one of my early teachers, Joyce Meyer, made mention to the fact that people in the public eye tend to show just the "good" side of their personalities. It is this "show" of their goodness and the repression of everything else that makes them look like hypocrites when the "dark side" is exposed. Like the Apostle John says;

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

John 3:19-20 (KJV)
There have been many thing that have occurred in my life and actions that I have taken that I am not necessarily proud of, but I am not ashamed of any of them. Lessons come in all sizes and packages and the only thing I would be ashamed of would be to have learned nothing from them.

That's the past and simply put, there's not a whole hell of a lot that I can really do about it. I could try to hide things, but unless they are unknown to any and all living beings, there's always the chance that they may come out eventually, so why not beat them and just be straightforward about them all?

As far as some of the day-to-day stuff that I write about and some of the more outlandish things, they are all part of who and what I am. I am a human, I have wants and some things I tend to think of as needs, I feel love and pain, joy and sorrow and, God forbid, I am a healthy male who makes use of those "evil" parts down south.

I get such a kick out of those self-proclaimed purists who think to be spiritual that you have to give up all the joys and pleasures of the physical world. It's like I tell my spiritually vegetarian friends, "God gave me k9s to rip into meat and I like to on occasion." The same thing with sex, God gave me a dick and what sometimes feels like an overabundance of testosterone and I'm going to make use of it when appropriate (OK, and sometimes when it may not be...).

...where Life and Spirit become One!™

The tag-line on my page really is the essence of what I teach and how I live. Integrating Spirit into one's daily life isn't about depriving yourself, but in learning about the Truth of who and what you are.

Some people need to become ascetic in their path, at least for a while, so they can develop an understanding that they have been mistaken about things, but it's like the (slightly updated) adage about meditation; "Anyone can meditate in the quiet of a temple, but when you can do it during the half-time at the Super Bowl, then you know you can meditate."

Some of the less than traditional things I write and talk about are to express this idea, and to be honest, sometimes it's just to elicit a response, I like to yank people's chains to get their attention sometimes. It can be amazing to see what people do when you come at them from a 90° angle.

Like I have written so many times, Life was meant to be an entertainment for the Soul, not a trap or prison. As one finds Spirit and begins to integrate the two back into a single whole, that which is illusion and unnecessary will fall away on it's own.

For an example of what I am referring to check out an earlier blog entry called "The 2 Best and Worst Things for Your Sex Life" which gives an excellent example of what I'm talking/writing about.

Someone once wrote that when one finds their relationship to God and the whole of creation, things like the 10 Commandments become self evident. Why would one want to steal from another when they realize that they are really stealing from themselves, the whole collection goes from "Thou Shalts and Shalt Nots" to "no duhs" that seem obvious.

And so it begins...

A month ago, I wrote about the fact that the California Supreme Court determined that discrimination along the lines of "separate but equal" had been overturned and Same-Sex Couples would be allowed to legally use the term "marriage" and as of 5:01pm today, it has taken affect.


I just finished watching the first same-sex couple in Los Angeles, Diane Olson and Robin Tyler, together for over fifteen years, get married on the steps of the Beverly Hills courthouse where they had been denied a marriage license every Valentines Day for the last eight years they had applied for it.

In San Francisco, the mayor of that city was also performing a marriage of a couple that had been together for fifty-five years; Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84.

Of course some closed-minded pin-head, not very enlightened of me, but when you hear someone yell "you will be burning in Hell" during a ceremony, I loose my perspective a bit. Agree with it or not, have some respect, but if there is anything that the Religious Right (ick - they are not right and if they would actually read their Bibles, they would know it.) has shown, neither respect for differing opinions or common courtesy can be expected from them, sad is it not?

The part of this whole argument that really gets to me from the, self-proclaimed, moralists is that with all their arguments, they obviously have no idea what a marriage is supposed to be. It's not about the genders of the parties involved, but commitment to become two who come together as one.

May all those in the Gay and Lesbian community that decide to enter into marriage do so for the right reasons, love and commitment, and in time, maybe we can show these closed-minded individuals what a marriage is supposed to be.

Would it not be hilarious if we turned out to be better at keeping marriages together than our Christian brothers and sisters who think we will be the death of marriage?

"The Secret" and "What God Wants" from me...

A friend of mine, whose opinions I have found to be quite worthy of my respect, was telling me about how much she really enjoyed reading the book for "The Secret". I had previously been told by others that it was basically a written version of the film and that there was not much more to it, hence I was not planning to purchase it. She was right and I am so glad to have listened.

I could go through several parts of the book and discuss how wonderfully it expands upon the the themes of the film and in some places goes into things that didn't make it in, beyond a cursory mention. One that really spoke (read yelled, screamed and made a general nuisance of itself) was the final chapter.

On many occasions, I have tried to find the will of God for my life. In the Southern Baptist world we are told that God has a plan and it is our job to fulfill whatever role He put us here for. Now this works really well as a philosophy for people who don't wish to take any particular responsibility for their lives and pass it all off on God. Now don't get me wrong, I understand completely why the majority of peoples would prefer to be at the whim of a distant and all powerful deity, but when I look around me and see what that mindset has created in the majority of mankind, I just find it questionable at best and obviously misguided at most. The first section of Neale Donald Walsch's book "What God Wants" goes into this with amazing clarity and brutal honesty.

I have never found a difficulty in asking God if something is right or wrong, guidance has never been lacking when I'm willing to hear it. But when I have asked what it is that God wishes of me, there has always been a distinct silence. I have been known to become a bit annoyed and sometimes testy with God over this lack of communication. If He has some wish for me, I would think it only polite to make me aware of it... How can I be help responsible on the day of Judgment if He won't speak up, especially when asked?

My parents and the common logic is that we are to race on this treadmill of sleep, work and television with the weekly visits on Sunday and Wednesday to Church to give my soul it's injection of Salvation. Now I am the first to admit that maybe I am just pig-headed about this, but I cannot imagine a more depressing. You might as well pull out the gun and blow my head off, talk about a hellish existence.

Others say that I should lock myself into an ascetic community or cloister of monks and like-minded individuals. Now maybe I am just a touch cynical, but somehow I suspect that is more for their satisfaction than mine. I have thought about it and would be open to it. My biggest stumbling block to date on this score has to do with where the previous is so far to one extreme of the spectrum, most ascetic communities are just as extreme on the other. Like the Buddha, I seek a balanced path down the center, the path between all extremes.

While there are many variants to the above paths, about the only true alternative is the "Follow you Bliss" path. Misery may satisfy the "original sin" crowd, but I just can't get my heart to believe in a deity that has nothing but spite for his creation and wishes them to live in eternal dread and toil.

Some say that to follow your bliss is to seek a hedonistic lifestyle, thinking only of oneself and taking little interest in the repercussions of those actions. Taken in a selfish way, it can be a slippery slope but through inspiration and perseverance we can keep our perspectives and hearts clear and true.

The simple fact is that all ideas, philosophies and theologies taken one way can bring true joy and just as easily taken the other direction tends to bring pain and suffering in the long run. St. Francis showed a path of simplicity and poverty and yet many found such things to be the source of pride and vanity in their personal experiences. This is also shown in some of the ascetic paths in the Indian traditions. We tend to feel raised by "our" sacrifices "for" God, how our ego's love to stroke themselves.

So what does God want from you? Listen to your heart and find the answer, if you truly listen it cannot be missed.

What does God want from me? The things that make me happiest are finishing pieces like this and sharing with others the joy I get from a view of life on this planet that I once thought was only allowed for greater people than I would ever be. My friends have giggled at me at times when I talk about my teeth humming. When I am "in the groove" I get the sensation that my teeth are humming along and a warmth runs up and down my spine and eventually explodes out from the sack of skin that I think of as "me".

Do I ever doubt myself and this whole thing? Of course I do at times and that is when I ask for guidance all the more fervently. We tend, in Western Christianity, to deify Jesus and put him completely outside our frame of reference, but as the Gospels tell us, even he doubted himself at times and the things he was called to do. We all have our moments where we are in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Since I know someone will ask, no, I have no delusions of such things, but use it as an example that if even the greatest of us can have doubts about what we are doing, then the least of us can't really be condemned as long as we are listening to that voice of inspiration that brought us here in the first place.

Why Religions Hate?

The other day, I received a response from Rev. Don Spitz who was not happy about my previous entry where I mentioned the "Army of God." I put down a bit of a flippant comment of my own to his, but I did go check out his blog and see what he has to say.

There is currently just one entry where he has a single entry where he expresses his disgust for PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals ). They seem to have a couple of campaigns where they use a bit of tongue in cheek humor to put forth the idea that we should not eat meat which he feels is worshipping the created over the creator by quoting:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Romans 1:25(KJV)

Cute choice since the verse is talking about the people who worship animal forms as gods as in idols and such forms. He seems to think that to respect life is to disrespect God. Sad...

After reading the entry and the article it points to, on the Army of God website, I sent him the following comment:

I am sure you found my blog by searching for the, oh so Christian, "Army of God" reference in my latest entry. Other than throwing accusations that I am refusing Jesus, based on what? I have no clue... I may not agree with your theologies, interpretations and dogmas, but I have no denial of Jesus, just the deified idol that people like yourself have turned him into.

As far as the Army of God is concerned, do you really think killing abortionists is any morally higher than being a "baby killer" yourself? Personally, I think it just makes you sound like a complete hypocrite, one reason to kill is immoral, but your reasoning is an acceptable reason... NOT!!!

In the context of the entry that you commented on: I do believe that Radical Christianity, such as groups like yours, are far more dangerous to this country than Radical Islam, which was the question (“Do you believe that Radical Islam is any threat to the world or us?”).

Your PETA complaints regarding their ads show that you are definitely in need of cultivating a sense of humor. I bet Jesus would have found them quite cute and humorous. Strange that his wrath in the Gospels was always aimed at people like yourself, Pharisees and Sadducees, who are so full of themselves and their holiness, that they had forgotten the spirit of the law for the letter (which brings death, if I remember correctly).

I am sure you mean well, but I will pray that some love for your fellow man might work its way into your heart sometime. If Jesus is nothing but a validation to justify your sense of superiority and judgment, I feel sorry for you.

Sadly, to many people the Reverend, and those like him, are what they believe Christianity is about. The word Christian means to be Christlike. Unfortunately, to most who use this title, it has become a badge of their superiority over their neighbors and others.

Why must we use God and religion to tear ourselves apart? The word religion originally meant "to bind fast" as in the "bond between humans and gods." Some have defined Religion as originally meaning "to re-link with God." I have always been tickled that the word "yoga" is Sanskrit for basically the same thing, "to join God."


I tend to be tough on Religions and Religionists since they have a tendency of turning religion into a justification for self-superiority and degradation of their fellow people, or worse; the local social club. Where this seems to have come in is via personal ego. When we follow one religious path or another, we tend to say "We have THE Truth" instead of saying, more properly, "We have an expression of the Truth." I have spent nearly two decades studying the scripture and teachings from as many religions as I can get my hands on, and after a while, you see direct correlations between them all. Religion is like a well cut diamond, each facet is another expression of the whole, no single facet entails the whole. When used properly, diamonds can be useful and beautiful, misused it can hurt, damage and in some cases even kill.

When we realize that we are all not separate, but part and parcel of God, that we are all encompassed by the totality of God, we loose the need to be in a seat of judgement over our neighbors. If you believe in the supremacy of and the omnipotence of God, the idea includes that God must be able to determine His/Her will and doesn't need us to go around killing our fellow humans, physically of spiritually.

Judeo/Christian Paradigms: Karma vs Salvation pt 1

As a Southern Baptist during my youth, I was taught that the Bible was the un-erring word of God and I must accept all that it has to say as literal truth. I always found that to be a bit problematic, though until many years later, I didn't know why.

One of the things that always bothered me as a youngster was the name "Jesus Christ". The problem for me was the word Christ as part of Jesus' name. Christ (Christos) is the Greek word for the Hebrew word Messiah and both actually mean "the Anointed One." So saying "Jesus Christ" is the same as saying "Jesus the Anointed One", in other words, it is a title, not a proper name.

So what does this have to do with interpretation of the Old and New Testaments?

The Old testament is made up of several sections which in Hebrew are referred to as the "Tanakh" which is an anagram for:

• Torah - Instruction
• Nevi'im - The Prophets
• Kh'tuvim - The Writings

The Torah consists of the first 5 books in the Christian Old Testament; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. In Genesis, which basically means"the beginnings", we have the story of the creation of the planet and all life, including humans, the fall of man and then we basically start the following of the line that would eventually meet Abraham and grow into the nation of Israel.

(As far as the two creations go, that's a piece unto itself, so we are not really going to get into it here but save it for a future entry.) We are going to catch up with the story in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve are having a happy existence where the "serpent" comes to temp "The woman" (she's not named Eve till after they are expelled from the garden) into going against the will of God, or so it is usually stated. Now what God had actually said was:

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 2:16-17 (KJV)

This was said to Adam before Eve was even created, so she must have gotten it second-hand from Adam which might explain her misstatements during the "temptation". After Eve's creation and a mention of the idea of marriage, defined as two becoming as one, the second chapter ends with a very important statement:

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Genesis 2:25 (KJV)

If this has you snickering about the fact they were naked, you might find the Beavis & Butt-Head website more to your liking (but I digress). Most people don't think about this little blurb here and the later reference but Moses [the traditional author] makes a point of inserting these statements in the story and I am sure they are there for a reason.

Chapter 3 starts with the serpent "tempting" Eve. I always wondered where she got the added "instruction" that to touch the fruit was dangerous. Was "touching" forbidden by God or was Adam trying to be helpful and add to what God said with , I'm sure, the best of intentions.

Immediately after they have both eaten, we have the following:

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Genesis 3:7 (KJV)

So, what we have is Moses making a point of telling us that they were naked and unashamed immediately before succumbing to temptation and knowing of their nakedness immediately afterwards and were ashamed enough that they made aprons for themselves. Why?

Genesis, the Beginning, tells us something very important here. The apparent answer is that in eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" caused them to become body conscious and loose sight of their true selves and natures as spiritual beings. Some would say they lost their innocence and mean that they now knew evil, but if you look at the other definitions for innocence, you get the following from the "The American Heritage® Dictionary":

• Freedom from guile, cunning, or deceit; simplicity or artlessness.
• Lack of worldliness or sophistication; naiveté.
• Lack of knowledge or understanding; ignorance.

What would you call it when one goes from a state of spiritual purity, inhabiting a physical form but not being overrun by it and going to the opposite end of the spectrum where one forgets their spiritual nature and is completely deluded by the physical world, I would actually view it as entering into innocence in a way, since they were now naive and ignorant of their true state.

So, what about God's statement that when they eat of the tree, that day, they would surely die? The serpent rebuffs it and says:

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Genesis 3:5 (KJV)

Now for as much as we usually make it out that the serpent misled Eve, other than the bit about being like "gods" which is in question (though God seems to think so in Genesis 3:22), the fact is that their eyes were opened, they did know good and evil. Obviously they did not die in the usual sense so if God was correct, then some other death must be the subject. With this, I find the death of their awareness of their true natures to be what died and as we will get into in a moment, the becoming attached to the body and the transitory things of creation causing death to the physical body.

This is really interesting in that the first thing they became was completely bodily conscious to the exclusion of their previous awareness of their natures to the extent that shame sets in immediately to cover themselves. They were so absorbed in this mental state that when God comes to the garden to visit, they hide themselves. When they admit this new understanding to God, the question is immediately asked, "Who told thee that thou wast naked?"

We follow this with Adam blaming his "helpmate" who passes the blame on to the serpent who gets cursed.

It is now that the beginning of the paradigm that is continued throughout the Tanakh and brought into the law of Moses, that of the world of Karma, Maya, the definition of what the world of "body consciousness" and attachment are:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Genesis 3:16-19 (KJV)

(I have to wonder how many children Eve had previously had while living in the garden since it sounds as if she had experienced it previously "I will greatly multiply", but that might be for another time.)

It is here that we start with life becoming defined as the function of the labours of mankind, the beginning of Karma in that the actions cause reaction and the labours produce their rewards. This is the paradigm that we see throughout the Old Testament. From this point until the New Testament we are about history of Israel and the "penalty" of action and, since we are now separated from God, the beginnings of the idea that sacrifice must be performed.

We are going to stop here, except for a couple of quick things...

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Genesis 3:22-24 (KJV)

Now God had said earlier that to eat of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" would cause death, and it seems that here we have God making sure that it would happen by keeping Adam from the "tree of life" for fear that he would become immortal which was not a good idea for physically fixated beings.

Buddha would find this of interest since he would agree with the basic premise here. His "Four Noble Truths" address this in a most direct and succinct manner:

1. Life is Suffering:
   Physical existence is made up of temporary, created items that come and go: impermanence.
2. Suffering comes from Attachment:
   It is our tendency to want to hold onto the pleasant and avoid the unpleasant that creates the pain in our existences.
3. Suffering can be Conquered:
   This condition of suffering need not be forever and can be defeated.
4. The Eight-Fold Path:
   A collection of tools and premises to use to break the cycle.

Genesis has prepared the groundwork for the First and Second Truths of the Buddha. As for the Third Truth, this is a promise that it need not stay that way forever. In the Old Testament, we start with the idea that our "fallen" state may be corrected via the concept of the sacrifice, the usage of others to "pay" for our wrongdoings.

We will continue from here and go into this paradigm of sacrifice and the ultimate sacrifice as presented in the New Testament with Jesus in part 2.

The Primer pt 1

To understand some of the view and expressions made here, I guess it would be helpful to give an introduction to a variant world view and express some basic ideas that I don't really want to have to explain every time that I use them (I probably will to some degree, but here is the best place to find the bare-bones basics of the view expressed here).

This is a general summary only, details will be given in later pieces that I have to sit down and write. Most of the examples used here are Christian unless otherwise stated. Not that I have anything against Christianity, but I live in a nation that claims to be a Christian one. Since that is the majority of my audience, I'll address them in particular. My friends of other religions though, find me just as pointed at them when we discuss them. Remember, all the paths lead to the same destination, God and Truth.

Table of Contents

---

Religious Foundation
God and Man
What is Sin?
Scripture References

Religious Foundation

---

I seem to get accused of being a Secular Humanist by many religious adherents (particularly by more fundamentalist individuals) but as I understand the term, it is definitely not an accurate term for myself in that as a "Secularist" I would deny the existence of God or a Higher Power as well as anything supernatural, which is completely incorrect. I guess you could say that I might be a Religious Humanist in that I do believe in God and that which is beyond the physical (super/supra natural) but have become disillusioned by traditional "organized" religions.

There is truth in ALL scripture and religions and to exclude any one of them would be a mistake. The problem comes from the codifying of theologies and dogmas that exclude anything outside of their positions. For example, I was brought up a Southern Baptist (Christian) and those beliefs do not accept the Pentecostal (Christian) idea of "Speaking in Tongues" though the Pentecostals find it to be a "Gift of the Spirit". If found "Speaking in Tongues" in my house, I would have likely found myself in the office of either an exorcist (or the Southern Baptist equivalent) or a psychiatrist's office. Imagine what the response would be if I found Nirvana or found spiritual bliss through the Hari-Krishna Maha-Mantram...

When you get past the inserted egos of the followers and later teachers, strip out the cultural contexts and actually look at the subject of what teachers like Jesus, Buddha, Krishna and many others were teaching, you find they are all talking about the same things from different perspectives or angles. Jesus and Krishna are so similar in many of their teachings, that I wouldn't be surprised to find Jesus had read the Bhagavad-gita (Jesus did grow up near major trading routes coming to and from India). Buddha doesn't worry about teaching about afterlives and heavens or hells, he just concerns himself with finding our true natures and experiencing life from that place.

Now with the above stated, do I deny the "deity" of Jesus or Krishna (some of the followers of Vishnu believe Krishna to be the incarnation of God's highest self) or were they just good to great men and teachers? That question is a lot more difficult to answer because of how we use language. To Christians, Jesus is the human incarnation (they don't call it that) of one aspect of the triune of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). In the way most Christians would mean the previous question, my answer would be "No" in that I don't see Jesus and his teachings as out of the grasp of the day to day person. Mainly because I see all people as part of God, just some are more aware of it than others, hence Jesus. So, from my perspective, the answers are Yes (because we all are aspects of deity) and Yes (since they spent their lives passing on knowledge).

I have several friends who have coined the term "Hindu-Buddhi-Christ" to describe my personal path as I see amazing harmony in their namesakes: Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma), Buddhism and Christianity. My personal view of my religious path could be called jnana-yoga after the idea of searching for knowledge.

God and Man

---

We are told by our elders that God is omnipotent and omnipresent. If this is correct, then the idea of separation that prevails through the majority of our religions, that God is outside our experience and reach, cannot be accurate and the idea that many people hold that God cannot be in the presence of sin is either wrong or our view of sin must be.

God is that which permeates and activates God's creation of thought that appears as the world around us. Paramahansa Yogananda put it beautifully when he said that creation is like a movie in a theatre, the illusion of light and form are projected upon the "screen" which is God. The screen can exist without the projection, but the projection would cease to be coherent without the screen and it would not be a movie without both.

The idea that God cannot be in the presence of wrongness is not supported in scripture. After Adam and Eve "sin" by eating of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", God speaks to them as if He were unaware they had sinned. In Job, there are scenes with the Devil in Heaven, apparently at the Throne of God, talking with God about Job. God speaks to Cain (a murderer), Noah (a drunkard), Moses (a murderer) and a whole host of prophets; their sins never seems to get in the way.

Mankind is the child of an eternal entity that can be seen in everyday events, if we are willing, and heard from in every moment if we will just open our ears and hearts to listen. As the children of God, we are part of him, inseparable.

What is Sin?

---

When asked, most Christians will tell you that Sin is either an old archery term that means to miss the point (accurate, but not for the reasons they think) or to go against the will of God (like that could be possible).

The first definition is correct but not because God said not to eat of the tree, but in what happens immediately afterwards. When you read Genesis, you find that the very first thing that happens after Adam and Eve eat, is that they become body conscious, they know they are naked. God even plays along and asks who told them about their nakedness. It is in this that true sin is shown. Not the eating of forbidden fruit (I suspect God set that up for other reasons) but in the forgetting of our true natures and our delusional fixation of the physical and corporeal. It is in forgetting our souls and living for our bodies that we are born into sin, not some pending judgment from on high.

The predominant world view that we are all under the watchful eye of a most high deity that watches and assesses the goodness or badness of every thought and deed comes from an idea that says we are separate from God. Because we believe that we are separate, we do God a disservice by bringing him down to our level of petty judgments, conditional love and general vindictiveness fit more for a bad Hollywood movie than an all powerful deity.

Scripture References

---

How does one choose from the plethora of Sacred Writings out there? The nice thing is that unless you want to, you don't have to. The secret is in the understanding of how it's particular representation of the truth is expressed. The Bible's Old testament (Tanakh: Torah, Prophets and Writings) is written from the perspective and culture of early Semitic nomadic tribes and there descendents. The Qur'an, the specific culture of the 7th century world of Arabia. The Bhagavad-gita is placed in the region of India and Buddha around the 5th century BCE.

Where I look everywhere for knowledge, the scripture I use most often are the Bible (KJV), The Bhagavad-gita, Upanishads and Bhagavata-Purana (Srimad-Bhagavatam) and the discourses of the Buddha (mainly the Sutta-Pitaka, for it's antiquity, and the Vinaya
for it's age as well in the early pre-differentiated status of its creation).

If I were to be dropped on a deserted island, I would take the Gospels of Matthew and John, the Yoga Sutras & the Bhagavad-gita. With those, I could still find the truth.

Talking During A Run This Morning

It's early and already today has shown itself to be another clue in the change of employment. I picked up a passenger who was absolutely sweet and we had a lovely conversation about the purpose of creation en-route to LAX.

Some of the topics were (most of these will eventually make it into later entries and the website, when I get a chance to put it all together...).

The Purpose of Creation

---

Neale Donald Walsch, in his "Conversations with God" series puts it better than anyone I know when he says, God knew himself to be the totality of all there is, creation is God experiencing himself as everything. To which I add, knowing something and experiencing it are two completely different things; for example, when you were a child, your mother told you not to touch the stove, it's hot and will burn you. Now you had that piece of data, but after the first time you actually touched it and had the experience of being burned, it was quite a bit more than a piece of datum.

Speaking In The First Person for God

---

In the Gospel of John and in several other scripture, we find teachers speaking for God in the first person. In John, we have "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) and in the Bhagavad-Gita, we have Krishna saying "If you become conscious of Me, you will pass over all the obstacles of conditioned life by My grace. If, however, you do not work in such consciousness but act through false ego, not hearing Me, you will be lost." (Bg 18:58). Both are claiming to be capable of saving others themselves.

Traditionally (on both sides) we tend to inject our own egos and pride and claim ours as THE one and only truth and the other as a lie or falsehood. What if, instead, both are true? How could that be? Maybe we all have the ability to save each other, possible but questionable, or (my personal belief) they are speaking on behalf of something greater than their physical appearance. In Christianity, we call it the Holy Spirit and in Hinduism, param-atma (the great soul (literally) the aspect of God which permeated His creation).

Omnipotence and Omnipresence

---

If God is omnipotent and omnipresent, then he can't separate himself from His creation, to do so would cause it to cease existence. We are given freedom of choice to make our choice and part of that allows us to deny the existence of God. If God were to do likewise, deny the existence of, say, me, I would cease to exist and no one would likely remember that I was ever here, uncreated (I know a few people who might consider petitioning God on this one).

I'l come back to all this later. I need to go back to work...

Thoughts on July 4th (almost)

Well, in just over 2 hours it will be the 4th of July (yippie yippie yeah) and what am I doing? I'm sitting on my bed, typing a blog entry while listening to "Steel Magnolias" for the um-teen-millionth time and yet, I still have a good time with it.

For those who may not live in the United States of the Corporation (oops sorry, of America), we are supposedly going to celebrate the freedoms that our founding fathers fought and, in some cases, died for. I sometimes wonder what they would think of what has become of their great political experiment.

One of the three best selling books of the 19th century was a book called "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville. It's a book that I think every American should be required to read. Not only does it give an amazingly accurate picture of what this country could become, it also gives many warnings about the possible pitfalls that the country could avoid if watched for. As with any author, I don't always agree with everything, but it's definitely in the right ballpark. Strange that people almost never heed the warnings of those who give good advice.

Not just in politics (from the Latin poli meaning many and ticks being small blood-sucking creatures) but our religions do likewise. We have these great and noble teachers who say they have knowledge that will help us find salvation, our true nature or just a better way of doing things in general, so what do we do? We kill them, pervert their teachings till the truth in them is nearly indecipherable and then run around killing anyone who might have a clue to what they are all saying in the first place--strange breed we humans are aint we?

So what does all this have to do with the 4th of July? We are living in an age where the freedom of speech is slowly being whittled away at in the name of Political Correctness (PC) which I definitely do NOT believe in. It's one thing to be considerate of the feeling of those around you, but the idea that you have some right to never hear something you might find offensive or unsettling is laughable in its ridiculousness. The fact is that there are times when you need to be completely rattled and hear something you are going to hate, but need to hear.

While it's not there yet, we are being guided in a direction that could very easily turn into a Christian theocracy if we are not careful. I'm not a harbinger of doom,so I don't worry about it, but as Jesus warned his disciples, know the signs of the times to see what's happening around you (ok, it's a questionable paraphrase of Matthew 16:2-3 but you get the point). Now why would I worry about a theocratic state since I am a spiritual student? (You ever see "John Carpenter's Escape from L.A."? A particular view of Christianity becomes the law and any other sects and religions are banished to a prison island. Yes, I'm quite aware that it is only a movie, but the point is obvious in its outlandishness.) As the ability to express differing opinions is slowly diminished, people like myself may find our outlets decreasing. What and who's truth will be allowed.

It's not possible? I hope you are right, but in the new world of conglomerate news, how many differing opinions do you hear? There are a few that tell a different side of the story but little by little, there voices are being made to carry the "official party line."

Pride and Gay Pride pt 1 [Essay]

Yesterday was the Christopher Street West (a.k.a. The West Hollywood Gay Pride) Parade and Festival. As usual, I went to the parade but skipped the festival itself this year. For those who have never been, it's a blast and definitely worth checking out at least once.

I could go into it's history and how it came to be, but if you are interested, they seem to do a pretty good job of recalling all that on their site.

Also as usual, I started my day with stumbling across the fundies (as I so nicely call them) a group of people who like to say they are there to love me by pounding home the idea that I am going to Hell for being gay. Well, as to that, I figure if God didn't want me to be gay, he shouldn't have made me that way. Just as heterosexuals never chose to be straight, I never chose to be gay either.

As is usual, they had the normal selection of Bible verses to quote from, though 2 come from Leviticus, they feel its fine to eat shellfish and their wives let them leave the house wearing cottons and wools and when was the last time ANY of them declared their wives unclean during her monthly visitor little less after childbirth. But though they have little to no interest in following the vast majority of rules and regulations of the book of Leviticus, they have absolutely no problem judging the guests and participants of the festival with them. People like that give Christians a bad name in my book and I find it such a shame that the majority of Christians don't do something about them.

I see the majority of these same people here every year and would have thought they might have had enough experience at the parades to at least ask some questions of the ideas and assumptions they made very clear in the conversations.

The first gentleman (I use that term loosely) would make some jack-ass statement and paint himself into a corner and instead of re-trying, he just got louder and louder. The second was more polite and we at least discussed the differences in our positions and made an effort at civility, if not courtesy. The third was as bad as the first except instead of getting loud, he would start throwing insults and really vile assumptions.

He would say that being gay meant that I was a drunkard and a lascivious sex pervert. I may have an occasional glass of wine with dinner and once in a while have a cocktail when I go out with friends, but I very rarely get plastered or even a bit tipsy, so drunkard is taking it a bit far. As far as being a sex pervert, I've been celibate (mainly) for the last 7 years. I have always been a bit old-fashioned in my dating in that I actually like knowing someone before I go to bed with them. Albeit, in West Hollywood, that makes dating a bit difficult but I don't spend much time there.

A friend had gone to the festivities with me and thought I was crazy for wasting my time in such a futile pursuit. I told him that I wasn't actually expecting any of them to become gay tolerant, little less friendly, but that you do it for the one single individual that later might actually look into the things I had said and have his heart, if not his mind, opened a bit more. Hence, why I get called a Spiritual Johnny Appleseed.

So what is being Gay? It's about being the person God made me and if that means being attracted to and loving those of the same gender as myself, so be it. For myself, Gay Pride is being just that and celebrating the diversity of God's creation by not letting simple and hateful people force me to be ashamed of something that I have little to no control over (I've decided to do a part 2 of this entry that will go into my personal history a bit on finding out about my being Gay).

To many people, being Gay is about going to bars and getting laid every day. That's a community activity that happens to most people when they come out of the closet. When you become aware that others are the same as you, that you are not a freak of nature and all alone, people have a tendency to over-compensate for the perceived loss of the experiences that most people get during adolescence. Though a hedonistic lifestyle has become a common and well publicized aspect of Gay life, these are nearly as prevalent in the heterosexual community, not a great idea for a central focus to a life beyond the crotch.

Though I am sure that many disagree with me, as far as I've been able to determine, the morality of nearly all activities is in the why, not the what. If I sleep with someone because I want to use them as a life-sized, 98.6 degree, breathing sex toy, I demean both them and myself. On the other hand, if I sleep with someone because I wish to share myself body and soul with them and they likewise with me, that's a beautiful thing and should be celebrated, not berated.