Copout

It would be so easy for me to get into a “religious” debate, which would have NO positive outcome in terms of my relations with family (which is currently estranged), yet there are issues which I believe transcend the temporal association of the familial.  Should it be ‘me’ to address these things, or should I leave it to some other, hereto unknown, I have NO absolute knowledge, I can only follow my convictions, hoping there will be or are others recognizing the logic, truth and wisdom.

The Bible, in my own estimation, contains elements of truth, half-truths and error. I once had an extremely intellectual Pastor who (after reading one of his plethora of reading material) tried to limit this truth-half-truth-error equation to the book of Ecclesiastes, but this ultimately put me on a course of greater critical exploration into Biblical assumptions. It remains to be stated I stayed within the Fundamentalist Evangelical fold and even for a while reverted to an Orthodox Reformed fellowship for a significant period. This is not to say I accepted all, or most, or much of their institutional dogma, but I did allow hierarchal authorities sufficient time and opportunity to attempt to convince me of their positions. Ultimately upon exiting ecclesiastic environs, I would be deemed a ‘heretic’ at best (which by their standards I do not deny).

But I have come to realize, regardless of numbers or popularity, their standards (as Biblical as they may be, and in many cases as a result of Biblical assumption) are NOT absolute, and reliance on one or another perceived Biblical line of reasoning only produces one or another attempt to “copout” of what is proclaimed to be an absolute adherence to the complete inerrancy and infallibility of the Biblical canon.

Now it must be stated, and this will be used as an argument proving my unscriptural and unspiritual thinking, that I do not recognize the “Bible” as the inerrant, infallible “Word” of God. It does contain “truth”, “half-truths” and “errors”. And more often than not, it is the religious (and quite specifically “Orthodox”) approach and thinking which establishes these errors. A general “rule of thumb” or “benchmark” of Orthodox thinking (Roman Catholic-Protestant-Eastern Orthodox) is that all human reasoning must stand up to the test of Biblical critique, all dependent upon one or another limited interpretations as accepted by the denomination, elders or established hierarchy.

Now, claiming a Biblical absolute of inerrancy, infallibility and unchanging nature, a popular way to circumvent “Old Testament” Levitical Law is to limit the ‘law’ or ‘command’ as pertaining to the original Hebrews, who received it under Moses as they were led out of Egypt toward the ‘promised land’, Or as stated “were given to Jewish people. And unless you are Jewish that would not pertain to you”.  This is a fundamental error of interpretation and understanding of the purpose of what is a ‘law’, or what is the nature of “law” if in fact the “inerrancy, infallibility and unchanging nature” of the Bible is to be accepted. I do state that I do not accept this absolute quality as espoused. Law does change. Even that which is proposed as “Gods law”.

There is a significant amount of debate within the Orthodox religious community as to the progressive nature of revelation in the history of the Hebrew/Jewish scriptures, and culminating in the appearance of Jesus Christ. I cannot argue against this as progressive revelation and development of thought is a universal reality in the area of philosophy and thought. Simply attributing one path of understanding to a “divine” character does not invalidate it, but only approaches the same reality in terms and images suited to a particular frame of thinking or mind. This is not an endorsement of that framework, but understanding within a particular community, insecurities with the limits of human intellectual ability outweigh any trust in personal and collective knowledge. This is not a wholly unfounded mind-set, but does have a tendency to become arbitrarily binding, IE a “retarded” state of intellectual development and resultant emotional immaturity likely ensues.

As law’s evolve, within the context of an enlightened community, (religious or not), greater inclusion and acceptance occur. This does not preclude abuses of individual liberties, but these are perpetrated by the less enlightened, or religiously intolerant, those predisposed not to accept the changing evolving nature of all reality. There have always been, and I believe, will always be the segment (and at times, a particularly large segment) of the populace who for whatever reason cannot or refuse to see the reality of the world changing around them. These could be antiquated religious reasons, lack of education or a stubborn clinging to some preferred ignorance. All these are ignorance of one sort or another.

Laws evolve to meet the changing climate of society. The sluggishness of this process creates the angle of stress. If too much force or resistance be exerted from either direction, the function of law fails. Whether thought of as divine in nature or a process of logic, the ‘law’ sets the reference points of our relations to each other. These, in themselves, are not absolute, but evolving as the human mind and community are able to adapt. This does not suppose that all peoples or regions are capable of adapting equally, but recognizes that progress, with any sort of stability, not deteriorating into violence and mayhem, comes slower than most enlightened would hope, and quicker than all predisposed are prepared to accept.

the drab reality of the American Middle West

“… the drab reality of the American Middle West … the social tyrannies and cultural emptiness …the conventions of village life … hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness … total conformity …thinking and feeling with the crowd.” (Perceptions of Sinclair Lewis on Mid-Western America) … And these are the positive attributes. Yet each may be amplified, and are, only to render a more diminished reality of life. Ignorance abounds, and may be perceived as elevated in its social estimation. Intelligence, education and real ‘acquired’ or sought after knowledge, suspect, if not actually disdained.  

 

But I know for a fact it is not only the Mid-West. Such attitudes pervade across the entirety of the country, but, I must say, seem to be all the more so at this juncture, at least, more openly so. “God, Guns and Automobiles” such is the mantra of what America has become. A pragmatism which asserts a self will and intention and damn the far reaching consequences. If it works, if only in the short term, and for the temporary benefit of the few involved, let’s ‘do it’. Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead tomorrow will take care of itself.  It’s our ‘Manifest Destiny’, as if anyone really knows what that is all about. 

 

I have found there are 'Theists' (those who in one form or another assert the reality of some 'god' or deity), Atheists (those who at least verbally deny any such entity existing above and beyond themselves), and Mammonists (those who ascribe to one or another deity, or not, but in actuality deify the gain to be sought for in what ever monetary rewards are available). More often than not, the theists are in actuality mammonists, as they account financial success or  accomplishment as being the evidence of theistic approval and reward. The atheists, may equally be in reality mammonists, as they too are equally susceptible to the economic pressures and realities which concern all realizing a material existence, and must live in accordance with a common set of values as all must do. As such, common ideals are adopted, whether theistic in origin or otherwise. The dominant religious being the most convenient, though not necessarily adhered to by either the theist or the non-theist, but a foundation for arbitration existing to make the system of relations tenable, but not without sufficient negotiation.  

 

As the general nature of culture becomes more distant and less involved with the history which led to its own evolution and dimensions, ignorance prevails and a spiraling disintegration ensues. In such a system I find my reality, and in such I must allow myself to become involved. It is not the reality of the 'Internet', where I may pick and choose my friends and acquaintances, but the reality of flesh and blood, and human beings of less than perfect character and aspirations, of failures and those trying to find redemption, some meaning and value to their own existence, and for what it's worth I join them and seek my own. 

religion and spirituality

I separate the concepts of “religion” or “being religious” from that of the “spiritual” or “spirituality”. To me religion is the attempts of humankind to construct a vehicle or some sort of device in order to acquiesce that which is contrived to be the divine. All too often these being the manipulations of the “few” to manage or control those less confident in their own relationship to whatever it may be which they conceive as divinity, and there not being any fool proof absolute of what constitutes divinity and the lack of acknowledged absolutes being taught, has left the general state of the human condition regarding the subject virtually void. There is an “anything goes” sort of approach to things religious and spiritual. He who is most persistent and often the loudest and dominant is perceived as being the most “together” in their knowledge and relationship to divinity, assuming that there is such an entity. And these, by virtue of their own imaginations, often reinforced by historic, generally acknowledged scripture to which a culture looks to and relies on, create their own ideal of what is spiritual and that faith which is most beneficial in relating the divine in the context of their community. These are the demagogues and manipulators of the minds of humanity, preying on the ignorance of the majority and ultimately retarding the natural evolution of consciousness, and all that which is the human species.

 Spirituality or existence as a spiritual being on the other hand is a totally different thing. It is not tied to or dependent upon any contrivance of religious notion, although may contribute to some religious development. Being is the only qualification associated with such existence. One may call one’s self by any number of religious ideologies, or even deny such or any divinity, they are really irrelevant. The closest we, as human beings, may understand this “spirituality” is in the fact of our awareness of being or “consciousness”. This is a state I believe all can acknowledge, although I must admit an ignorance to the fact that states of unconsciousness do exist, which in the longer run must be included and may shed an even greater illumination upon our understanding of what is our nature as humans, as beings and possibly as the divine. I admit I seek answers to questions which as a human being may never be realized, yet I do so as endowed with an unquenchable desire to come all the closer to the “truth”, not knowing what that may entail or whether such even exists or even whether having found it I would desire it. These are irrelevancies.

 Although I perceive demagogues dominating the religious environment, denomination or sect not being relevant but rather different shades of varying colors, it should not be assumed that I consider the originators of various religious platforms as such. These I find, for the most part, to have been well meaning initiators of doctrine and dogma transcending the once commonly held orthodoxy. Yet this does not preclude the fact that imaginative charlatans have in the past and continue to pervert commonly held religious notions to their own advantage. The primary problem is that as doctrine and dogma have been elevated and sanctified, they are championed by second and third generation adherents as being their actual experience, when in fact they are the hand me down religious thinking of predecessors, long gone and far removed from the actual fact, and what is promoted is not in actual fact firsthand experience. The doctrine of the experience has lost its meaning and effectiveness. It is effectively to be relegated to the realm of legend. Only firsthand actual experience is of value as being the closest thing to objective truth. And yet even this is not without possible criticism, as the state of human perception is anything but absolute and untainted by subjective preference. The reality being pure objectivity does not exist, at least, not as may be comprehended by human sense and reason.

 Recognizing and stating all this does not make for sufficient reason not to continue seeking, for only by seeking is it possible to grow that much closer to that which “IS”. The fault as it exists is not in the seeking, but rather (1) in the ambition of those who would exploit to their advantage what is newly realized, and (2) with the vast numbers (if not actually the majority) who find it too inconvenient and too much effort to actually use their minds to do the mental work requisite to consider and analyze what it is they are mentally consuming and allowing to influence them.

 Being of different opinions regarding truth and what may (or may not) constitute a thing is not the issue, but rather the unwillingness to set aside one’s own ideas in order to more fully appreciate those of another. This does not mean adopting another’s views and ideas, but having the mental and psychological fortitude to see an issue as perceived from the vantage of another with differing perspective, and then if and as needed evaluate and critique such, stepping back into ones original position. Such, means taking a risk that one’s own values and world view may be affected and altered in the process. Many find this a fearful thing. These are those who without due process of thought adopt into religious and political ideologies of the status quo. I have found, by accident of experience, that I am not one of these. By accident of experience I do not mean that I set out to be such, but rather through life’s experiences found this is me, the way I am. Too be sure, mistakes have been made, but life has a way of getting one back on track or correcting direction, if one is of a mind to pay attention and not give up. This also does not mean that life is resolved in a manner which would please others, but rather I am established to be more focused on what it is that constitutes me as a human being. Is there an end to it? I rather think not, but cannot say with absolute certainty.

 

 

Something Right – July 19

There is a line in a song, it may even be the title, I simply don’t know but it says or at least implies “Somewhere, somehow, I must have done something right”. Or maybe it’s just our “Western” (and Eastern influenced) way of thinking which tries to account for the reality of our experiences through a “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” or the “cause and effect” Newtonian-Cartesian mind set. A mind set which takes very well to the concept of “Karma”. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but on the other hand there are the acausual synchronicities which cannot be explained through the “cause and effect” model. They simply happen, at most explained as some deeper inner psychic or (to use a controversial idea) spiritually related occurrence. Or to be even more difficult to comprehend (though established through physics and science) the Quantum nature of reality witnessed on the micro and macro levels of reality beyond normal human senses and sensation.

Regardless of what it is, or is not (as a means of explanation or accounting for). “At someplace, somehow, I must have done something right.” I don’t know, it simply is … Some would say “It is ‘God’”. I don’t have a problem with that  except “That is the easy ‘cop-out’” assuming we, the human being cannot comprehend, cannot think and understand and ultimately are not made in the image of the ‘God’ some would account any unknowable too. Yet it is continually evidenced, knowledge increases, and that once attributed to no other than one or another deity, is known and understood as simply the way the universe and reality is.

I do not find this to be refutation of “God”. Neither do I propose the absolute reality of some “other” figure or supreme-being as “God”. But it is my acknowledgement of our, the human beings, growing and increasing knowledge and understanding of that which is the divine. And if there is a “mind of God”, it is accessible to us and ultimately “in us”, as is proclaimed by the Apostle Paul himself that “we have the mind of Christ”. The error of the “Orthodox Church” is their literal absolute universal claim to exclusivity regarding this mind.

Yet, something’s work out right and no explanation seems sufficient. It is kind of the opposite of “Shit Happens”.

Hats – July 12, 2013

In this Texas sun and being outside a lot, I need to wear some kind of hat. Now I do not feel comfortable in one of those wide brimmed “cowboy” hats that many down here wear. An I will not, even as a joke, put on a sombrero, which is not uncommon. But a simple baseball cap, with a bill in the front to shade my eyes is ideal for me.

When Mary first got here and we had a little cash and not having a hat, I cleared it with her to get one for just about five dollars. A large blue star was front center and immediately I was assumed in the ranks of fans of the Dallas Cowboys. Not such a bad place to be, but I don’t follow football ( or any other sport team). But being quiet and a disposition to be agreeable (on matters of little importance) and bow to the expertise of self-proclaimed authorities, maintaining a satisfactory relationship within the community was relatively easy.

Now the Dallas Cowboys did not have a very good year and on New Year’s Day at a dinner for the homeless I was able to acquire a new hat, this one with the phrase “House the Homeless” on the front. But receiving the hat I was told I’d have to turn in my Dallas Cowboys hat. I think he was joking, but I responded with “Well, they aren’t doing anything this year” and laid my Cowboy’s hat on the desk. My new “homeless” hat was not the quality of the first, but it did have a bill and did the job of keeping the sun out of my eyes.  

Now not having clippers to regularly trim my beard, it was starting to grow out and it was not uncommon to be complimented on it. It was full and well-formed and gave the appearance of an Old Testament prophet or Santa Clause. It was not uncommon to hear “Hey, Santa Clause” from over-weight women in Wal-Mart, or ‘frat’ boys half-drunk wanting to impress some UT coed.

Now my hat was becoming well-worn and stained from the sweat of my head, my beard untrimmed, eventually grown out about eight inches, I was often addressed by younger, more polite street people as “Hey, Old timer”. Older, more mature businessmen, believe it or not, addressed me as “Sir”.  I often would forget what was written on the front of the hat, as I also am unconscious of my tattoos, which are also prominent and unmistakable. But occasionally, as I remembered, I realized I was unapologetically getting in the face of many who would rather I, and my like, were not there. I was a reminder that the system does not work for all. My demeanor fit the stereotype. I was not a drunkard or hopped up on drugs. I was able to survive on the streets, never being ticketed or arrested, but I was there and something didn’t fit … I didn’t fit. I didn’t fit the profile. Eventually, I lost that hat. It was no great loss, I should have thrown it away a long time before.

At a Thursday breakfast at the Presbyterian Church, shortly after Mary returned to Indiana, I was looking through a bunch of hats on a table and one kept my attention. It was corduroy, burgundy, with a large T in the center and slightly smaller A & M on each side of it. I knew immediately it was a Texas A and M cap, and it looked good, so I claimed it. Texas Agriculture and Mechanics, this is a college about 60 miles east and at one time a rival school to the University of Texas at Austin. I realized that if I wanted to get in someone’s face, this was the hat to do it.

Now beard was trimmed to a civil length, and except for the fact that I usually have a backpack on I do not appear “homeless”. I am approached regularly by “pan handlers”, but I set them straight as to the realities. Most simply ignore my brandishing the A&M. I really believe they are afraid of biting off more than they can chew, but there are several former A&M alumni that have expressed their appreciation, and amidst a community, not so distant, a respect for being bold, though I admit initially, ignorantly.

Collateral Damage – July 12, 2013

What is the difference between the collateral damage caused by a landmine and that of an unmanned armed drone aircraft? Is there a moral difference between the use of one and the other? One is place there and virtually forgotten. The other is controlled by a technician, isolated and out of harm’s way, thousands of miles away. If this not the end product of all those video games we have placated our kids with throughout their formative years? Kill and be killed, only to resurrect and do it all again … and again. Antiseptic, conscienceless … clean assuming that there was a conscience there to begin with. Or is the conscience grown, developed … matured? And has our collective conscience not been sacrificed, the collateral damage of our lusts for higher technology and convenience?

Closet Heretics – July 12, 2013

A few years back a friend of mine, Don under the pseudonym Delbor Greebies, commented on a blog I had written about the spiritual relationship between a man and a woman culminating in the act of making love, that this was in fact the only “true” religion. I believe he was, or is, absolutely correct. All other religious functions which we engage in are merely artificial edifices that we construct as means of relating to one another under the auspices of an illusory deity presumed “Lord” over all.

Some reading this understand and know exactly what I am talking about. Some, the more culturally captive, possibly Fundamentalist, are quite offended by the idea. Some agree whole heartedly, although would never do so publically. To you, I would say, “You are in actuality a closet heretic. It’s Okay to come out of the closet. You don’t have to play somebody else’s game.”

What is your relationship to your spouse? Significant other? Domestic  partner? Whatever? ‘There’ is your relationship to your ‘god’… there is your experience with the ‘divine’.