Yep, your names been called. Front and center. Let's go. Move it!
That is what yesterday's post was all about. If you continue to wait for God to fix you, or the world, pick out a casket. You will die with all the unfulfilled longings that make up your daily existence. If, however, you want to change the world, then change yourself. Take on the mantle of savior, saint, guru, teacher--or, if need be, (and you are truly enlightened) the title of worthless avatar, lazy monk, or prickly priest. Quit letting the idea of you becoming perfect before committing stop you in your tracks. You are never going to be perfect! (sorry to break that bit of news to you)
Instead, perhaps, you can share your life story without all the guile, blame, and self-deception you usually employ. Forgo the masking of your insecurities and self-loathing, everyone does that. Teach them something they rarely (if ever) see. Authenticity. Here I am in all my majestic worthlessness! Yes, I am fallible. No, I don't have all the answers. And guess what? That's my teaching!
Something rare is invariably considered precious, valuable. So it is with an individual who can reveal themselves as they are--stripped of all artifice. And this you can begin teaching today. Do so.
Thursday, May 19, 2016
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
No Longer Christian, But Christ
Understanding the title of this post is a literal suggestion, feel free to teach G-G-G. If you genuinely can't get to the point of it being a literal reality (you being the anointed one) then consider going back to 2012 and begin at the beginning; Aurora.
(If you need to ask does 'no longer Jewish, but Jehovah,' or 'no longer Muslim, but Mohammad,' apply--of course it does! It's back to Aurora for you as well.)
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
What Time Is It
I have suggested in other posts that God isn't something because He is everything. I know this is difficult. It sounds weird. "Pat," I can hear you saying, "He would have to be something if He were everything." Perhaps. But the following excerpt from the book, "God (A Guide for the Perplexed)" by Keith Ward, may aid us in the paradox; albeit with his discourse on time. (page 134)
"Time, despite Aristotle, did have a beginning (most modern physicists would agree with this). You can always ask, 'What existed before the first moment of time?'--but the question does not really make sense. It is like asking, 'What positive integer exists before the number 1?' The answer is that it is the first positive integer. So, if time is a relation between events, and there is an event that is not preceded by any other event, that is the beginning of time. No problem."
"God, however, is the creator of time. So God does not exist before it. God must exist completely outside and beyond it, not in a temporal way at all. God is absolutely timeless. In God there is no before and after, and God does not exist at any time. It follows that God does not now exist."
"The point is that God does exist. But there is no time at which God exists. The whole of time, from beginning to end, is created by God. Because of that, it is just as true to say that God creates at the end of time as it is to say that God creates at the beginning. If we imagine the whole of time as a line from A to Z, then the whole line is made by God in one and the same act." (all emphasis mine)
I think this argument is easier because we can picture a distinction between God and time. The position that there is 'no time at which God exists,' is an understandable concept (time being a byproduct of God's creation). It may be more difficult to embrace the idea of God not being something. It is the limitations of something, the inherent specificity of the word, which makes it inapplicable. Just as God is nothing (no thing) neither is He something (some thing). He is everything. (every thing)
Of course there may be those who claim this is all a matter of semantics. They would not be wrong. When it comes to God we can't be sure...even if we insist we have had a divine revelation. Many have had revelations (Abraham--Moses--Jesus--Mohammad--Joseph Smith, etc). Are we to believe that God has altered His message? Revised it? Updated it? Or can we allow for personal visions that are consistent with a universal longing for that inexplicable something that is everything we ever dreamed of? Time will tell.
"Time, despite Aristotle, did have a beginning (most modern physicists would agree with this). You can always ask, 'What existed before the first moment of time?'--but the question does not really make sense. It is like asking, 'What positive integer exists before the number 1?' The answer is that it is the first positive integer. So, if time is a relation between events, and there is an event that is not preceded by any other event, that is the beginning of time. No problem."
"God, however, is the creator of time. So God does not exist before it. God must exist completely outside and beyond it, not in a temporal way at all. God is absolutely timeless. In God there is no before and after, and God does not exist at any time. It follows that God does not now exist."
"The point is that God does exist. But there is no time at which God exists. The whole of time, from beginning to end, is created by God. Because of that, it is just as true to say that God creates at the end of time as it is to say that God creates at the beginning. If we imagine the whole of time as a line from A to Z, then the whole line is made by God in one and the same act." (all emphasis mine)
I think this argument is easier because we can picture a distinction between God and time. The position that there is 'no time at which God exists,' is an understandable concept (time being a byproduct of God's creation). It may be more difficult to embrace the idea of God not being something. It is the limitations of something, the inherent specificity of the word, which makes it inapplicable. Just as God is nothing (no thing) neither is He something (some thing). He is everything. (every thing)
Of course there may be those who claim this is all a matter of semantics. They would not be wrong. When it comes to God we can't be sure...even if we insist we have had a divine revelation. Many have had revelations (Abraham--Moses--Jesus--Mohammad--Joseph Smith, etc). Are we to believe that God has altered His message? Revised it? Updated it? Or can we allow for personal visions that are consistent with a universal longing for that inexplicable something that is everything we ever dreamed of? Time will tell.
Monday, February 8, 2016
Where Credit Is Due
On January 12, 2013, I wrote the post, Let Us Pray. I feel it appropriate to give you an update.
The person referenced relocated to northern California 16 months ago for a job opportunity. He was (more or less) forced to move into his youngest son's apartment for financial reasons (not all that easy when you are 61 years of age). Two weeks ago he got a raise which enabled him to get his own place. Every step along the way he has confronted his fears, doubts, and insecurities; and lived to tell about it. All the stress inherent relocating, starting a new job, sharing his son's living space--as well as the collateral damage of a failed relationship due to drug use--have been overcome. He is a success story and needs to be celebrated. I would yell, "rah," if it wasn't such a dead giveaway. (private joke) So, I will leave it at, "thank you." And if any of you happened to lift your voice in prayer with me for him, thank you as well.
(Note of Interest: The July 30th, 2015, post Master Meister is about the son in question.)
Update: 2-28-16 You know, I'm not entirely happy with the response to this post. It makes me feel as though further disclosure is required, so let me add this: the raise the person of the post got was $30,000.00 a year. Yeah, that's right, THIRTY THOUSAND. A year. Think about it.
The person referenced relocated to northern California 16 months ago for a job opportunity. He was (more or less) forced to move into his youngest son's apartment for financial reasons (not all that easy when you are 61 years of age). Two weeks ago he got a raise which enabled him to get his own place. Every step along the way he has confronted his fears, doubts, and insecurities; and lived to tell about it. All the stress inherent relocating, starting a new job, sharing his son's living space--as well as the collateral damage of a failed relationship due to drug use--have been overcome. He is a success story and needs to be celebrated. I would yell, "rah," if it wasn't such a dead giveaway. (private joke) So, I will leave it at, "thank you." And if any of you happened to lift your voice in prayer with me for him, thank you as well.
(Note of Interest: The July 30th, 2015, post Master Meister is about the son in question.)
Update: 2-28-16 You know, I'm not entirely happy with the response to this post. It makes me feel as though further disclosure is required, so let me add this: the raise the person of the post got was $30,000.00 a year. Yeah, that's right, THIRTY THOUSAND. A year. Think about it.
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Confirmation
The following is from the appendix of the book "Thou Art That," by Joseph Campbell (edited by Eugene C. Kennedy). The excerpt is from an article by Eugene that appeared in the New York Times, Easter Sunday, 1979, entitled; "Earthrise--The Dawning of a New Spiritual Awareness."
Kennedy: If Heaven and Earth were divided, so too were the body and soul, nature and supernature, flesh and spirit. The universe was ordered in a hierarchical fashion and so too were the churches.
Campbell: This divided model allowed us to think that there was a spiritual order, separate or divided from our own experience. Think of how we spoke about things according to the old model. Everything was seen from earthbound eyes. The sun rose and set. Joshua stopped both the sun and moon to have time to finish a slaughter. With the moon walk, the religious myth that sustained these notions could no longer be held. With our view of earthrise, we could see that the earth and heavens were no longer divided but that the earth is in the heavens. There is no division and all the theological notions based on the distinction between the heavens and the earth collapse with that realization. There is unity in the universe and a unity in our experience. We can no longer look for a spiritual order outside of our own experience.
I have been suggesting this was the case for 3 and 1/2 years. (more than 340 posts) And though I'm reluctant name-dropping, I invoked Joseph Campbell because I feel a real sense of urgency. If you've been following the on-going political campaign(s) in America, perhaps you share my alarm. It is time to remember what you have forgotten. I can't teach you anything you don't already know, all I can do is help you remember. So remember!
Kennedy: If Heaven and Earth were divided, so too were the body and soul, nature and supernature, flesh and spirit. The universe was ordered in a hierarchical fashion and so too were the churches.
Campbell: This divided model allowed us to think that there was a spiritual order, separate or divided from our own experience. Think of how we spoke about things according to the old model. Everything was seen from earthbound eyes. The sun rose and set. Joshua stopped both the sun and moon to have time to finish a slaughter. With the moon walk, the religious myth that sustained these notions could no longer be held. With our view of earthrise, we could see that the earth and heavens were no longer divided but that the earth is in the heavens. There is no division and all the theological notions based on the distinction between the heavens and the earth collapse with that realization. There is unity in the universe and a unity in our experience. We can no longer look for a spiritual order outside of our own experience.
I have been suggesting this was the case for 3 and 1/2 years. (more than 340 posts) And though I'm reluctant name-dropping, I invoked Joseph Campbell because I feel a real sense of urgency. If you've been following the on-going political campaign(s) in America, perhaps you share my alarm. It is time to remember what you have forgotten. I can't teach you anything you don't already know, all I can do is help you remember. So remember!
Friday, February 5, 2016
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Pimp Daddy
Abram was renamed Abraham (Genesis 17:5) by God because, "...thou shall be a father of many nations." What kind of guy did the Almighty choose to multiply so that his descendants would be, "as the stars in the heaven, and as the sand which is on the sea shore?" (Genesis 22:17) A cowardly, craven, POS (see; urban dictionary) that was ready, willing, and able, to pimp out his wife to save his own skin, that's who. Take a look at Genesis Chapter 12 if you don't believe me.
Heading south from Canaan into Egypt due to famine, Abram says to his wife Sarai; (verse 12-15) "...when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it might be well with ME for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee. And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair. The princes also of Pharaoh saw her and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house."
Abram receives "...sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels" for her sake." (verse 16) This means in payment. I (Pharaoh) get the woman, you get all of the above. But God threatens Pharaoh in a dream with, "great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife." Pharaoh naturally goes to Abram and asks what kind of game he is playing ("what is this thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was your wife?"-verse 18) and boots him out of the country. No mention of the Pharaoh demanding all-of-the-above, back.
Apparently this scam worked so well that God and recently christened Abraham (see above) run it again. Chapter 20 reveals Abraham sojourning south toward Gerar. Here the same scenario unfolds with King Abimelech. He takes Sarah (renamed at Genesis 17:15) because Abraham tells him she is his sister. Another dream, (this time though, death is threatened--verse 3) and another bewildered royal asking, "what sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing?" (verse 10) Abraham offers up the same pathetic story: "they will slay me for my wife's sake." (verse 11) Naturally, such integrity must be rewarded, so we read in verse 14; "And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and menservants and women servants, and gave them unto Abraham, and restored him Sarah his wife." Abimelech actually throws in an additional thousand pieces of silver, so that, "thus she was reproved." (verse 16)
A good father teaches his son a trade, and Abraham isn't any exception. Chapter 26 of Genesis has his son Isaac use the same old con game on the ultra gullible Abimelech. Same story line, (Rebekah is his sister; verse 7) same rational, (fear for his own life) same [implied] results. (see verse 12 and 13 after Abimelech's speech, verse 10 and 11) We can rest assured, however, that in each case the propriety of Sarah and Rebekah was preserved--no matter that the most powerful man in each region had been played for a fool. God set things right by threatening the innocent with "plagues" or "death" if they didn't restore the here-to-for unknown wife to their despicable husbands. And be sure to kick in a bundle of goodies for the deception.
Of course these accounts are preposterous. God as depicted (all-powerful) could have easily prevented the lustful eye and action of Pharaoh or King. But for some reason it is allowed--and the stories indicate it was for ill-gotten gains. The innocent are duped so our man of God gets rich. I guess the truth is, like Baby Powder in the movie "How High," we can claim: "I'm gonna tell you something, this pimpin' I got in my blood, it came from a family tree. My granddaddy was a pimp. My great-great-great granddaddy was a pimp. I'm talking about pimpin' since been pimpin' since been pimpin'! It's in my blood."
Heading south from Canaan into Egypt due to famine, Abram says to his wife Sarai; (verse 12-15) "...when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it might be well with ME for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee. And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair. The princes also of Pharaoh saw her and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house."
Abram receives "...sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels" for her sake." (verse 16) This means in payment. I (Pharaoh) get the woman, you get all of the above. But God threatens Pharaoh in a dream with, "great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife." Pharaoh naturally goes to Abram and asks what kind of game he is playing ("what is this thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was your wife?"-verse 18) and boots him out of the country. No mention of the Pharaoh demanding all-of-the-above, back.
Apparently this scam worked so well that God and recently christened Abraham (see above) run it again. Chapter 20 reveals Abraham sojourning south toward Gerar. Here the same scenario unfolds with King Abimelech. He takes Sarah (renamed at Genesis 17:15) because Abraham tells him she is his sister. Another dream, (this time though, death is threatened--verse 3) and another bewildered royal asking, "what sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing?" (verse 10) Abraham offers up the same pathetic story: "they will slay me for my wife's sake." (verse 11) Naturally, such integrity must be rewarded, so we read in verse 14; "And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and menservants and women servants, and gave them unto Abraham, and restored him Sarah his wife." Abimelech actually throws in an additional thousand pieces of silver, so that, "thus she was reproved." (verse 16)
A good father teaches his son a trade, and Abraham isn't any exception. Chapter 26 of Genesis has his son Isaac use the same old con game on the ultra gullible Abimelech. Same story line, (Rebekah is his sister; verse 7) same rational, (fear for his own life) same [implied] results. (see verse 12 and 13 after Abimelech's speech, verse 10 and 11) We can rest assured, however, that in each case the propriety of Sarah and Rebekah was preserved--no matter that the most powerful man in each region had been played for a fool. God set things right by threatening the innocent with "plagues" or "death" if they didn't restore the here-to-for unknown wife to their despicable husbands. And be sure to kick in a bundle of goodies for the deception.
Of course these accounts are preposterous. God as depicted (all-powerful) could have easily prevented the lustful eye and action of Pharaoh or King. But for some reason it is allowed--and the stories indicate it was for ill-gotten gains. The innocent are duped so our man of God gets rich. I guess the truth is, like Baby Powder in the movie "How High," we can claim: "I'm gonna tell you something, this pimpin' I got in my blood, it came from a family tree. My granddaddy was a pimp. My great-great-great granddaddy was a pimp. I'm talking about pimpin' since been pimpin' since been pimpin'! It's in my blood."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)