Have you ever wondered why and how two of the oldest philosophies/religions in the world came to be? More importantly, have you ever considered the ultimate concepts contained in those philosophies ? While I do not know with certainty about their origin and development, it seems likely to me that they were the direct attempt to understand the basic meaning of life and at the same time discover the nature if its origin. While the Abrahamic religions were busy bargaining with their god, and offering sacrifices to him, the contemplative far-easterners were desperately trying to understand if such an entity actually existed and if so in what environs.
My research tells me that the contemplatives were way ahead of the sacrificials who had dreamed up a scheme of power and control right out of their own playbook—that is to say, they manufactured a god patterned directly after their own possessive, egotistical selves. Their god was theirs alone and could not be shared with anyone.
In the meantime, the contemplatives, like many native Americans were driven to see their god in everything (wind, sun, stars, waters etc.) Without benefit of any scientific knowledge at all, just as Jesus, they were able to devine the existence of God in everything. Jesus could not explain the specifics, he just knew that the spirit of God existed in everything. He saw that everything in existence was evil by virtue of its selfishness, and by his knowing, he was commissioned to die in atonement for the father’s faults so the Father could be Perfect Love . So he died that we may live in eternal bliss.
Can there be a greater thrill? I’d vouch to say that no one who professes an Abrahamic religion is any closer to God than any Hindu or Buddhist that ever lived. We each are loved equally by our Perfect Loving Creator with no one possibly being more favored over another—there are no such things as higher places in heaven.
For full elucidation, please read my two little books, Wilderness Cry and Peace in Spirituality. Press releases and video trailers attached
I have been reading many posts the last few days about anxiety, depression, lack of self-esteem etc. It should be noted that there is always a significant up-tick in these feelings during dark of winter, and especially near Christmas-time. There are two categories of anxiety; one type is generated by real circumstances such as concerns about where your next rent payment will come from. That is conscious anxiety and normal. The next type, which is universal, is subconscious anxiety which has a much different generator. It is instilled in us at an early age before we are rational. We are made to believe that we are bad by well-meaning parents, teachers, preachers and others. Those ideas and feelings are stored in our subconsciousness. We don’t remember the specific incidents which caused the ideas and feelings, but we have a general feeling of uneasiness and don’t know why. The more we have been poorly indoctrinated in our formative years, the greater feelings of guilt and anxiety we exhibit. Greater degrees and extremes of anxiety may, and frequently do, lead to depression, even to the point of taking ones own life. Depression is caused by our failed exhaustive attempts to ward off punishment generated by the guilt instilled in us. We see defensive reactions exhibited in many ways but two stand out. One is the overbearing hot head know-it-all who has to be right all the time; would argue a point “till hell freezes over”, and all the time likely being wrong. The other in the cowed, meek, person who exhibits no feelings of self esteem. Typically, that person is shy, backward, hates to meet new people, doesn’t like crowds, would panic if asked to speak to a public audience, and typically will cling to one or two people in their lives. Usually they live in constant fear but have no idea why. In my powerful little book, Wilderness Cry, I show how Ideologies and Religion are the two main culprits in causing those problems. Both of those entities impose on us ideas and demands totally contrary to our God-given nature. As infants, toddlers and small children, we are not capable of a rational analysis of these contrarian ideas; we simply are left with the built-in ideas that we are bad which generates guilt; guilt generates need for punishment; punishment generates anxiety which generates feelings of worthlessness and depression. I show in my book that religions and ideologies in general have ignored Jesus’ command for us to love one another as ourselves. If that were the norm in our society, our children would be inculcated in a framework of love and acceptance. The result would be dramatic. Universal peace would prevail, anxiety would be reduced to a minimum, and people would be God-loving and people-loving. It will likely never happen because of Power, Money and Control. Dictators and Church Hierarchy will never relinquish their Power. For an understanding of how to rid yourself of these anxious feelings and for a complete elucidation of many, many more concepts, you must read my book, Wilderness Cry- a Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe. Amazon and all on-line book retailers.
IDENTITY–Do you have ‘identity’? Of course you do. But if someone asked you to explain your identity, what would you tell them? Likely there would be a hesitant stammering with an eventual ‘well, it’s my looks, or my name, or even what I stand for’. And those would be suitable answers for everyday conversation, But, just what is ‘identity’? The word, itself, comes from the Latin word ‘idem’ which means ‘same’. So, we may legitimately define the essence of identity as ‘sameness’.
That sameness may be applied in various ways as just indicated—a photo appearance of our basic features—by name—by attitude, political philosophy, etc., etc. However, if we choose, each of those identifying characteristics can be changed. The ‘identity’ I want to address today is our eternal (spiritual) identity.
The eternal identity ascribed to each of us in the Bible would be essentially the same as we are here on earth with one major exception—we would be, either eternally blissful in a New Paradise, or eternally anguished and tormented in the unquenchable fire of hell. It all started, of course, in the Garden of Eden with a ‘talking snake’ enticing Eve to disobey God, and she, in turn, coaxed Adam to do likewise—that’s when ‘all hell broke loose’. God booted them out of Paradise to the condemnation of earning their living by ‘the sweat of their brow’.
Somewhere along the line, God repented from his harshness, and made a deal with them (the Israelites)—if they would be ‘good little boys and girls’, he would send a messiah who would ‘restore Paradise just for them’. Well, in fact, a messiah did appear after several thousand years—his name (identity) was Jesus of Nazareth. Now Jesus wasn’t exactly what they were looking for—he preached a heretical message of ‘universal love- of both God and neighbor. They killed him for that .
During the course of his teaching (preaching), they asked him ‘when was he going to restore the Kingdom’, and he told them that ‘the kingdom of God is spread out all over the earth around them, and they didn’t see it. They didn’t seem to like that answer very much—they either didn’t understand or didn’t want to understand it. However, in their determination to ‘have it their way’, they changed Jesus’ identity somewhat—he was the ‘messiah in waiting’—he had to die first—then he would come back. He would separate the ‘sheep from the goats’.
You know the story—the sheep had an identity of ‘goodness’. They would inherit the ‘New Paradise’—they’d all be running around gleefully slapping grandpa on the back, and giving grandma a great big smacker on the cheek and a big hug—the ‘poker gang’ would be back together drinking beer, smoking big cigars and telling jokes. In short, it would be just ‘one hellava’ infinite party. In the meantime, the poor goats, whos identity was synonymous with bad (evil), would be cast into the ‘eternal fires of hell’—they would be begging Lazarus for just ‘one drop of water’ on their tongues— they won’t get it.
Strangely, after Jesus death, one Saul of Tarsus, who later changed his ‘name identity’ to Paul, decided that it was logical and appropriate to change the identity of Jesus—Jesus would no longer be the ‘messiah of just the Jews’—he would be known as the messiah of all. That ‘identity change’ didn’t set too well at first with Peter, James and John, but they eventually accepted it. However, Paul’s identity changed dramatically in the eyes of the Romans—he became identified with ‘insurrection’ just as Jesus was—so, the Romans killed Paul. In fact, they killed Peter and, eventually, thousands who identified with Jesus of Nazareth.
So, where does that leave us? I can’t speak ‘for you’ but I can speak ‘to you’. I know where it left me—I lost my identity in the ‘fairytale’ of the bible. I would give anything if we could know exactly what Jesus said and did—just as importantly, if we could know exactly what the early writers had to say. Sadly, neither is possible and here’s why. Many of you, maybe most, are unaware of the origin of current bibles. The original writings were not neatly catalogued in a bound volume (book)—there was no such thing at the time. Each writing was made on a papyrus scroll or dried animal skins. As Christianity spread, there was need for many, many copies—each community needed a copy. Each copy had to be made by hand, and that’s where the ‘rub’ comes in. It is quite obvious that Jesus’ identity changed from one community to another—that is born out by the ‘climate’ of near total discord among Christian Bishops and their communities in the year 325 AD when Emperor Constantine called the first council at Nicaea. The sole purpose of that council was to settle those disputes once and for all, and establish Christianity and the official religion of the entire Roman Empire.
There was need for literally thousands of hand-made copies of the known writings. Quite obviously, Jesus’ identity changed from one community to the next because of the resultant disagreements. The copiers, either made legitimate mistakes in their transcription process or, very likely, they deliberately changed the wording to suit their own whims. The final result is this—the oldest known complete one of those copies was made some two hundred years after Jesus’ death. During the first Nicaean Council, many scriptures were accepted as legitimate and many were rejected—it seems logical that the scriptures which were accepted identified the Jesus which the majority liked, while those which were rejected carried a different ‘Jesus identity’. Needless to say, there is absolutely no ‘logic’ to assuming that the majority were correct—winning a war doesn’t prove whose right; just who’s in charge.
All of that background knowledge forced me to define the identity of God—the God presented to me as a child and thereafter, just didn’t exist. From that standpoint, it is quite easy to see why there are so many atheists—the God presented to them by religion is an irrational ‘fairytale’.
I did, in fact, discover God’s identity: God is a Perfect Rational Being. That discovery changed Jesus’ identity—it also changed your identity just as it did mine. God’s ‘Perfect Rationality’ pervades all—nothing can be without it. That perfect Rationality translates into ‘Perfect Love’. Perfect Love knows no conditions—it is total acceptance without any pay-back. And, why should it not be that way—after all, God, with his Perfect Intellect, envisioned it all and, with his Holy Will he chose it all—would it be possible for a perfect God to ‘reject himself’?—that would be total illogicity and impossible.
So, what is the ‘net effect’? Simply this—we all are God’s children—we all are Jesus’ brothers and sisters. Jesus told us that, but the ‘framers’ of Christianity just couldn’t let go of power and control, and the money therefrom forthcoming. So, they ignored Jesus’ teaching of ‘love’—they had to have a God identified with ‘vengeance’—they had to have the tool of ‘guilt’ in order to exercise that power and control—they needed to impose a ‘blanket of guilt’ on everyone just for being ordinary normal human beings—they had to ‘brand us’ with a new identity; shameful, guilty sinners who, not only deserved punishment of the harshest type, but most likely would attain it. They knew exactly how to make a world full of ‘jabbering idiots’—burn them to death on a pile of wood just for being God’s normal creature—a new identity was created for all.
Jesus, in his brilliance, recognized the invalid identity of God which was being presented to us by the Jews. He could plainly see the universal evil of ‘selfishness’ exhibited by everything in existence. Knowing that he, we, and everything in existence were ‘mirror images’ of our creator, led him to understand that God’s Perfect Love must be demonstrated—God’s children must be liberated—his Love must be exhibited, understood and accepted. So, Jesus assumed a ‘new identity’—savior of the world—and, what a wonderful identity it was/is.
In light of that understanding, what should our response be—a great big “Thank you Lord God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit (Will of God) for my life, for my sustenance, and for my eternal salvation. Amen, Amen, Amen. Tomorrow is Thanksgiving Day in the USA—every day should be a day of thanksgiving; don’t you think? Eucharist means ‘thanksgiving’.
What about our eternal identity. The contemplative Hindus saw this life on earth as one phase in eternal existence. If I understand them correctly, assuming your life here has been exemplary and filled with love, joy and happiness, you stand a good chance of passing directly back to your creator. However, if less than perfect, you will likely reincarnate as some other being or entity and get ‘tried’ over and over until you ‘make the grade’.
What, then, would/will be our identity at death? My philosophy, based on Jesus’ teaching of Love, my definition of God as Perfect Rationality, and my understanding of particle physics, plus my observations tell me one thing for certain—every particle of energy which make up my body will, in time, be incorporated into another physical existence; be it water. sand, air, a tree, a dog, or whatever. Whether or not, I will have a specific rational identity is only a matter of faith and hope in God’s love—Jesus reportedly told us, ‘eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, nor hath it entered into the mind of man, the glories that await us (paraphrased). I believe, without doubt, that I would be extremely happy with that identity—wouldn’t you?
If anyone is interested in further investigation, please read Wilderness Cry and Peace in Spirituality. My book, Wilderness Cry will be features as On-line Book Club’s Book of The Month starting December 1, 2020.
QUESTION–Everybody knows what a ‘question’ is; right? Yes, I suspect literally one hundred percent of ‘rational’ people do. Most people seem to be full of questions of all kinds. In fact, I daresay that, in any single twenty four hour period, there are billions of questions asked. The ‘real question’, however, is, ‘how many of those questions justify and/or receive a sound scientific and/or philosophically sound logical answer—the likelihood is, very few.
If your experience has been similar to mine, you have heard and observed questions of every sort and description being asked, but, more importantly, being answered in the most inane way—people call that ‘conversation’. I suppose it could logically be classified as conversation, but to me it’s senseless ‘chatter’.
What we frequently find emanating from such ‘conversations’ is misinformation (disinformation) spreading through society like ‘wild-fire’—one person says it ‘dogmatically’, and the next repeats it dutifully, or maybe with a little ‘flavor’ added just for emphasis. The consequence is that, in a very short time, the original ‘version’ is hardly recognizable . In fact, it gets so bad at times so as to give the ‘fact checkers’ a headache trying to follow the story-line. Why do you suppose that is?
I think it is a ‘personality trait’ engendered by an ignorant society and fostered by a ‘fear’ of not knowing. Somehow, we are ‘scared to death’ of saying, “I don’t know”—we are ‘deathly afraid of appearing ignorant amongst our peers. But where does that ‘ignorance’ come from? Plainly, ignorance exists when truth is not known. So, the mighty question arises, ‘how do we know truth?’
Quite obviously, if we want to know truth, we must learn it from two possible sources—by education in ‘known truths’, and by the ‘scientific process’. Known truths ‘came to be’ by way of the scientific process (method), and just what is that? It always involves ‘asking a question’ followed by proposing a possible answer with eventual experimentation to determine if the proposal was correct. If it proves to be correct, we must get the same result with multiple repeats of an identical experiment—if we do, we have a scientific law—if we don’t, we must propose a different solution and continue the repeating process until we ‘find’ the correct answer. Until and unless we do that, everything we propose is ‘pure speculation’ and likely meaningless. Now to education—
I am totally convinced that our education system is a ‘monumental failure’. I am allowed to say that for two main reasons. Number one in my eighty seven years, I have observed the near total demise of the meaningful education in the history of the human race. I might interject an old saying—‘those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it’. Number two, children are not being taught ‘how to think’. By that, I mean they are not being taught how to think ‘logically’. Logic demands that we must accept the consequences of factual observations. We simply cannot go about ‘willy-nilly’ saying what we please with no factual back-up and expect people to accept it.
If I were in charge of our educational system I would put into place two mandatory educational standards—‘Logic’ which would teach children ‘how they are allowed to think’ and ‘Psychology’ which would teach them ‘what they are allowed to think’. Psychology would teach them how each personality develops due to each persons different life experiences—therefore, each person has individual feelings and biases about any subject. Ultimately, each child would learn that ‘known truths ‘ exist and must be honored—‘unknown truths’ must be uncovered by the scientific process—question, propose, experiment, observe, repeat, honor results. Children need to understand this process at an early age—at least by fourth or fifth grade of elementary school.
I have written about ‘rationalization’ before—that is, using one known or presumed truth and applying it in an illogical manner to draw erroneous conclusions. Even semi-astute observers see that scenario play out on so-called national news programs, repeatedly, each day. Of course, the purpose of such chicanery is to influence the minds of the ill-advised and/or unlearned—ultimately, power and control over you and your pocket-book.
That exact ‘plan of attack’ has underscored the ‘playbook’ of organized religion from day one. In ancient Egypt, Kings and, later on, Pharos were considered to be ‘earth gods’—they owned all the land, collected taxes and waged wars to protect their land. In addition, they built monstrous edifices celebrating their own achievements, and conditioning themselves for death and a new life existence. Similar activities played-out in most of the ‘civilized world’—there were Kings and High priests who owned everything and the rest were basically peasants—same plan as Judaism.
Fast forward to Jesus and Christianity—see any difference?—I don’t. The peculiar thing about all of that ‘religion and reign’ is this—no one but no one was allowed to ask a question. During the ‘Inquisition’ people were routinely burned to death for even suggesting that the earth was round. In fact, it was three years after Vasco da Gama sailed to India proving the earth was round, before the Pope lifted the prohibition. You will recall that Galileo saved his hide from the fire by recanting his scientific discovery that the sun was the center of the universe and not the earth which was mandated under penalty of ‘death by fire’. The great Greek philosopher, Socrates, was executed by the Greek elite because of his insistence that everyone be able to explain (defend) any statement they make—on his death mat, he advised his acolytes to ‘question everything’. His demand meant that if one cannot explain the exact meaning (essence) of a statement, the statement, in fact, has no meaning.
As a child, at a very young age, I began questioning certain tenets of my religion, Roman Catholicism. I was taught religion (Catholic catechism) with the same identical certainty as arithmetic and algebra. I was readily able to see the logic in all sciences. However, the ‘factual religion’ I was mandated to learn and the demands it imposed upon me seemed ‘illogical’ and ‘unreasonable’ in many areas. When I dared ask a question, I was told to ‘basically shut up’—don’t be asking questions. When I was twelve years old or so, after observing for several years that absolutely nothing which we, individually, or even as an entire parish collectively, prayed for ever came to fruition, I did ask my parish priest why that was—why wouldn’t God ‘answer our prayers? To my surprise, he did answer me—he said ‘it was God’s will’. So, even at that tender age, I determined ‘a logic’ there—if it were God’s will that he ‘never answered our prayers’, two things pertained—God’s will could not be changed and we were wasting our time and effort in begging him to do so.
That startling realization was frightening—it prompted many, many questions for which there were no obvious answers. I was bewildered—a feeling of ‘helplessness’. However, I became determined to not let it ‘get me down’—I would find the answers to all my questions ‘on my own’—the Church certainly was not going to help—later on, I realized that the Church couldn’t help—it was hopelessly mired in a system of mythology—it still is.
As a matter of fact, I have sensed a ‘slight inclination’ of a Church being forced to accept ‘scientific facts and gradually crawl out of its shell of mythology. However, I am certain that many generations will pass before any significant ‘morphing’ is achieved—there are simply too many people in any given generation who ‘remember’. My proclamation—‘it will change or it will die’.
After sixty plus years of determined investigation into the essence of God , I had the good fortune of ‘stumbling’ onto a course in Quantum Mechanics (particle physics). As I worked my way through that course, a ‘startling revelation’ came to light—bingo!—the answer to my eternal question was right before my eyes—Suddenly, I knew who God is. No longer did I have to quander over the meaning off a human-like God—a grizzled old man sitting in some mythical cloud in some mysterious place. Suddenly, my God was real—it was everywhere—in everything including me and you—in every grain of sand—in every leaf. Jesus had told us that already, but the church ignored him—“split a piece of wood and I’ll be there; lift a rock and find me there”(paraphrased).
The communion host of which we and many Christians partake, suddenly took on a different meaning. The word ‘communion’ means a ‘commonality with something or someone’. My question about Trinity God was suddenly answered—the Spirit (will) of God was in everything or it could not be. That ‘communion bread’ means that we have a ‘commonality’ with ‘everything in existence’.
God’s essence suddenly became obvious. For the first time in human existence, God’s essence could be defined—the eternal question finally could be answered—not only answered but answered irrefutably.
God is a Perfect Rational Being. That definition answers any and all questions about our existence, both temporal and eternal.
In light of that knowledge, two years ago, I called for the recognition and acceptance of ‘The World–wide Communion of Spirituality, which simply means that we are in communion with everything in existence through the Spirit of God. That Spirit (Will) of God in necessarily ‘branded’ onto every quantum of energy of which every gravid object in existence is made, or nothing could exist.
Now, do you have ‘questions’? If so, I’ll guarantee that you will find the straightforward answers in my two books, Wilderness Cry and Peace in Spirituality.
WRONG JESUS–You may be wondering , already, ‘what on earth does he mean by ‘wrong Jesus?’. Well, I’ll tell you, but it won’t, necessarily, be a short answer.
To begin with, let’s take a look at the so-called Christian world—as of the year 2014, there were 33,000 listed, different Christian religions and/or sects on this planet. Any reasonable person would ask in wonderment, ‘how can that be?’ Again my explanation will not be a short ‘one-sentence-er’.
To begin with, we must look at the book of Genesis—therein lies the framework for all of our division and consternation. The scientific information we have today, in my opinion, proves the ‘Creation story’ to be pure mythology which was based on someone’s imaginary attempt at explaining the universes’ existence. That singular ‘false premise’ set the stage for everything following to be false—any conclusion which is based on false premises is, by its very logical nature, certain to be false.
So, given that original false narrative, the plot thickened and expanded from there—a continual and continuing ‘string of incorrect conclusions’ right up until the time of Jesus. The myth goes like this—
Mankind and, indeed, all animal life had been created into a state of ‘perfect harmony’—a paradise where all animals loved each other and snakes could talk. Genesis doesn’t tell us about any other animals talking—it makes sense that they all could and did—I would loved to have eavesdropped on their conversations.
Genesis does tell us that Eve and Adam disobeyed their Creator (God), and he, in turn, cast them, along with all the animals, out of Paradise and condemned then to a life of toil. No longer were the animals lovey-dovey with each other—can’t you just imagine how ‘all hell broke lose among them’? It’s a wonder that any of them survived—maybe the ‘sly weasel’. Ill bet that snake wished he’d kept his mouth shut.
By the way, how’s come Genesis doesn’t tell us how it came to be that all of a sudden the snake decided to ‘turn against God’ and tempt (lie) to Eve—maybe that was an ‘incidental triviality’ not worth mentioning. My take—I suspect that the mythology writer thought his story was convincing enough with no further explanations necessary—just let you ‘fill in the blanks’.
And, fill in the blanks, they did. They started with ‘frequent conversations’ with their God—their ‘bargaining sessions’ became often and sometimes lengthy.
Ultimately, their fantasy and ‘wishful thinking’ had to be satisfied. In one of their most famous bargaining sessions, they convinced God to send them a Messiah who would immediately ‘recreate paradise’ just for them—to hell with everyone else. So, they waited in ‘long suffering’ for that day. When it finally came, guess what?—they discovered that their period of waiting wasn’t over, after all. To their chagrin, Jesus told them that he first must die and then come back before their Kingdom of Paradise would be restored—what a disappointing ‘slap in the face’—2000 years now, and still waiting.
Well, we know the historical story—the Jews, themselves, killed Jesus because he was ‘teaching hearsay’ to their religion. Jesus followers, however, believed in his teaching—but what was his teaching? That’s the ‘sixty four thousand dollar question—that’s where the ‘rub’ comes in.
Remember, literally all of Jesus early followers were Jews—they were well aware of the Jewish religion. Consequently, from day one on, there was no consensus about what Jesus teaching really was. More importantly, there was no consensus about what his teaching meant. And there, my friends, is where all the trouble started.
Paul was the first known person to write a single word about Jesus some fifteen years after Jesus’ death. He freely admits that he has no idea of how he came by knowledge of Jesus’ teaching—in previous communication, I have opined that I am certain he got his information from those he was persecuting. When he suddenly realized that he may be/was persecuting God, himself, he had an overwhelming emotional (hysterical) reaction which prompted him to proclaim he did not know ‘whether he was in the body or out of the body (paraphrased)’. Be that as it may, Paul never agreed with Peter, James and John about the requirements of salvation. Paul preached a salvation by faith in Jesus whilst the others insisted on, not only faith but ‘works’ as requirement for salvation.
After three hundred years, the Christian community world wide was so divided as to prompt the Roman Emperor, Constantine, to call a general council of the worlds ‘bishops’ at Nicaea, and demanded that they formulate a singular religion of their liking—that, they did, and Roman Catholicism was born. That religion created a ‘high and mighty’ hierarchy, which eventually exhibited so much corruption as to prompt the ‘Protestant Reformation. That ‘break-up’ began a well-spring of Protestant religions. The Catholic Church, itself, had already split in to Roman and Eastern Churches by the mid-one-thousands.
So, why all the break-ups? They had to do with many factors, but two were outstanding—power struggles on the one hand, and theological on the other. The Roman Church was so bestraught with corrupt leaders and tainted practices—selling indulgences for profit, the ‘Inquisitions”, etc., as to prompt the Reformation. Once the Reformation began, the ‘cat was out of the bag’. Different “versions’ of the Bible were appearing often, and each version represented the theological whims of each writer.
Consequently, the mythology story of Genesis began, in earnest, to ‘play out on the giant, world stage’—Star Wars isn’t even ‘in the running’. Splinter sects of Christian religions sprang up like weeds, everywhere—they seem still to be. Why? None of them, of which I am aware, ‘knows Jesus‘. They each, in turn ‘paint him with a little different brush’—that brush gives them an ‘identity’—it destroys Jesus’ identity. Not a single, solitary one of them is willing or seemingly able to accept Jesus as he was /is. Not a single one is able or willing to accept the Jesus I know—Pure Love and nothing more. He gave his life that we may have life—can there be greater love? He commanded us, explicitly, to love—‘love our God and love our neighbor’. That’s the only, real Jesus I know.
Every preacher I have ever seen or heard has to ‘flavor’ Jesus’ teaching—they are compelled to ‘put words in his mouth’, and why?—I think I know—power, money, control.
So. I ask you, truthfully, ‘Which Jesus do you know?’ I know the Jesus who recognized and understood that the Spirit (Will) of God was in everything in existence. He knew that God was not separated from his creation—God was/is in all of his creation simultaneously. He knew that God was ‘Perfect Love’—therefore he could reject nothing—God is ‘all loving, all accepting.
In light of that understanding, two years ago I called for the recognition and acceptance of The World-wide Communion of Spirituality. That insight recognizes the presence (Spirit [Will]) of God in each and every particle of energy of which everything in physical existence is composed.
Please consult my two book’s, Wilderness Cry and Peace in Spirituality, for full understanding.
HYPOCRICY–Do you know what a hypocrite is? In short, it’s a person who says one thing, or pretends to be doing one thing, while doing the exact opposite. I have known many hypocrites in my eighty seven years—likely, you have also. Most of them have been in the field of politics, but not all. Political hypocrisy is so commonplace as to, almost, be expected. We see it play out on the national scene daily—-people in power making rules ‘for everyone’ except themselves.
The most recent case came to light just today—the governor of California attended a lavish birthday dinner party involving many people, in spite of his order for his constituents to avoid such events. I must refer again to George Orwell’s famous book about communism, ‘Animal Farm’ in which, in describing the status of equality in communism, he notes that ‘all animals (people) are equal; it’s just that some are more equal than others’ (paraphrased).
For me, the most disturbing place of all for hypocrisy is in the realm of so-called Christian (?) religion. I say ‘so-called’ because in my lifetime, I have not seen a single cleric of any religion do as Jesus commanded—‘go into the world and preach the good news that I have come to die for you, and that God loves you; take no provisions, not even a second cloak; live off what you are offered; if you are not accepted, shake the dust off your sandals and move on (paraphrased)’. What I have observed is a hypocritical, self-serving hierarchy, and televangelists who have made a ‘mockery’ of Jesus’ commands.
Do you remember James and Tammy Faye Baker?—I do. Do you remember Jimmy Swaggart—I do. Do you remember Oral Roberts?—I do. In fact, I not only remember him, Mary Lou and I attended his TV production at the ‘City Of Faith’ in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Not only that, I played Golf with him at the Sothern Hills Country Club after the US Open was over in 1977—I was an invited guest of his ‘right hand man’. Oral was a good golfer—5 handicap. Both of them were members of Southern Hill Golf Club which, at the time, was rated the 12th. best course in the United States.
Each of those three televangelists fell like ‘shooting stars’ because of their ‘infidelity’ to Jesus teaching—they all proved to be hypocrites of the highest degree—they preached one thing and did another—their words were for everyone except themselves. There’s an old, oh so true, saying—‘pride comes before the fall’.
Now let’s look at the scandal that’s rocking and wrecking the Catholic Church even as I write. I’m speaking of the ‘cover-up’ of the Cardinal McCarrick homosexual sex scandal. It seems clear that high ranking prelates, from Pope John Paul 2 on, ignored his escapades. In fact, it seems so bad that there have been a calls for John Paul to be de-sainted—that in itself may be a cover-up—who knows?—somebody (s) does/do. The pressure on Pope Francis got so bad that he, finally, had to address the scandal. He did so in a weakly-worded four hundred page report in which he failed miserably on two fronts—seemingly, he did not ‘finger’ other living prelates, although he did accept the resignation of one other—more importantly, he did not address the rampant degree of homosexuality and homosexual practices among the clergy.
All of those activities are hypocritical attempts at holding together a Church torn from corner to corner by one scandal after another. Neither has it ever been different in the history of the Church. There have been many ‘bad popes’ in the Church’s history. Benedict 1X was pope three times—some historians say he was first made pope at age eleven. Others dispute that, and say he became pope first at age nineteen. There is, however, no dispute that he sold the papacy. There were many ‘bad popes’ because the papacy seldom seemed be about spirituality—it always was about ‘power, money, control’. If you care, just go on-line and read the history of the ‘bad popes’.
Could we have expected anything different?— unless we are dunces, I think not. Was not the Church which Constantine commissioned patterned exactly after Judaism, where those in control ‘had it all’ and the peasants had nothing but guilt and shame—they were obliged (forced) to make expensive ‘perfect offerings’ to God for their sins. Of course that perfect offering could only be provided by and offered by the High Priest at an extortionate expense to the penitent.
The hypocrites who led Christianity have always been about power, control and money. They have built monstrous edifices as their ‘home churches’ (cathedrals; basilicas—status symbols), and hob-knobbed with the ‘rich and famous’ while, hypocritically, preaching humility and charity to their subjects. Their sexual escapades, literally from day one, are well documented—yet, hypocritically, they have universally given their subjects the ‘piss ant’ treatment over their sexuality—they certainly knew how to control people—just tell them, authoritatively, they are going straight to hell for being normal human beings.
As the result of such attituded toward sex, Gordon Rattray Taylor, in his astute book, ‘Sex in History’, described Medieval Europe as ‘A cesspool of psychosis’. Of course, the Inquisitions were going on at the time—who wouldn’t ‘go crazy’ worrying about being burned to death for bring normal.
In my opinion, one of the biggest hypocrisies involves the Church’s refusal, to-date, to address the issue of homosexuality, in general, and among the clergy, specifically. Pope Francis recently suggested that civil unions between homosexual partners should be established so as to protect their civil rights—personally, I have no problem with that. However, I suspect that opinion of Francis’ is intended to offer ‘cover’ for the homosexual clergy—in that sense, again, pure hypocrisy.
People are becoming more and more disenchanted with both religion and politics, not so much because of what is said, but more importantly, because of the observed hypocritical actions of the ‘sayers’. I am fully aware that this may seem partisan, but Donald Trump is the only president I have ever known who has done exactly what he promised—guess what, he’s not a politician—just a simple, straightforward business-man—he’s a deal-maker—a bargainer. Oh, would that we had more like him. You may not like what he did, and that’s your prerogative. However, no one can truthfully deny that he kept his campaign promises—he proved he’s no hypocrite—I’m just observing.
Wouldn’t it be nice if both politicians and preachers alike could and would ‘speak truth—‘do as I do’, just as Jesus said—“come, follow me”.
There exists an absolute, non-hypocritical, truth, which is explicitly outlined it in my two books Wilderness Cry and Peace in Spirituality. You might want to investigate farther.
MYTHS AND MYTHOLOGY—A ‘myth’ may be defined as ‘a widely held but false belief or idea’. ‘Mythology’ may be defined as ‘the adaptation of myths into a philosophy of cultural beliefs and practices, especially religion’.
When we take a look at the derivation of religions in ancient times, we discover that each religious belief and practice was based on a false narrative. Fourteen thousand years ago, the obviously brilliant Egyptians connected the dots of adjacent stars to form various animal entities. They accurately calculated the time required for each character to rotate off the horizon and called it an ‘age’. Because each character was of different dimension, the ages ranged in time from about 1800 years to 2200 years. The word Zodiac means ‘circle of animals’, and the Zodiac as designed by them contained twelve characters—the time required for the complete rotation of the Zodiac characters was calculated to be about 25,960 years. They were, in fact, ‘pretty smart dudes’.
So, given that scientific (mathematical) observation to be true, what happened next? In their earnest desire to explain the events in their lives, and, indeed, explain the meaning of their existence, they began using that ‘known fact’ in a mythological way—they began rationalizing. They perceived deities who had specific duties and/or attributes, and they gave them names. Those deities were usually representative of some celestial body. Later on, the Greeks did likewise. The great Greek philosopher Socrates was sentenced to death because of his insistence on ‘essential’ explanations of everything, including gods. His acolytes Plato and later on Aristotle attempting to define the essence of matter devised the term ‘atom’ which means the smallest indivisible particle of matter. They had no tools at the time to explain their hypothesis, so, in reality, they had no realistic idea about an atom. Of course, they were proven wrong my modern scientists—a quantum is the smallest indivisible particle of energy (matter)—not only that but each quantum is perfect in both form and function.
It is noteworthy that the writer(s) of Genesis recognized ‘one true God’ two hundred years or so before Socrates time. While the ‘one true God’ is likely to be factual (that can’t be proven), the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses was/is also a myth—and now I can hear you screaming, stomping and pulling your hair out—you are calling me every despicable name known—how dare I say that? And I say, ‘its mandatory’—if you cannot ‘define the essence of your god, your god is a myth’. The Athenians killed Socrates for demanding essential definitions. Socrates knew that nothing has meaning without an essential definition. In other words, using plain simple language, if you say it and can’t define it, ‘you don’t know what you’re talking about, and neither does anyone else’.
At an early age, I recognized the ‘deficient image’ of the God as presented to me. Instinctively, I knew something was wrong but I had not the tools with which to correct it. My studies and quandary led me through many cracks, crevices, twists and turns before , by sheer good fortune, I was able to ‘honor Socrates demand’—I was able to do something never before done—I was able to ‘define the essence of my God, and to do so in‘irrefutable terms’—My God is a Perfect Rational Being—and so is yours—if you only knew it. However, truth is always truth whether or not we have discovered it—the gold in the hills of California was always there before 1849—it just hadn’t been discovered yet.
My definition of God’s essence says it all—it explains all in clear, concise, unquestionable terms. It graphically explains the Trinity, Soul, Eternity, Heaven—it precisely dispels the ‘myths’ of Hell, Purgatory, Limbo, Physical Miracles, and much more. It dispels the myths surrounding Jesus—his birth, life, death, and beyond. It does, however, lend credence to who the real Jesus was/is—he and we and everything in existence are of that same essence. That same Spirit of God permeates everything in existence—otherwise, it could not be. Jesus was the messenger, the one and only messenger to understand that—he was the cristus, the light (enlightenment) of the world. He told us who God is—God is all love. God created every tiny perfect particle of energy of which everything is made—he commissioned them to perform perfectly. That, they have done, and because they are perfect and unchanging, they exist in eternity—they are God. God could not possibly reject himself.
No one can prove the existence of God—neither can anyone disprove God’s existence. However, knowing, scientifically, that everything in existence is perfect in both form and function makes it philosophically sound to accept a concept of God, and that God is a Prefect Rational being. It is not some grizzled old man sitting on some mythical cloud in some mythical place—it is, however, a Perfect Being who exists in a state of unchanging and unchangeable eternity—a state of being where time, which is a measure of change, is impossible.
Therefore, all of the myths promulgated in the Bible and perpetuated by organized religion are just that—pure, unadulterated mythology, straight out of the astrological, zodialogical playbook of Egyptian and Greek mythology. The pity is this—here we are, scientifically, and psychologically educated, rational human beings, patterned after the rationality of their creator, and we are still mired in the swamp of mythology from 14,000 years ago. Will we ever shed that ‘dead snake skin’ and turn to the teaching of the ‘real Jesus’. ‘Moses gave you ten commandments, but I give you two—hear ye, oh Israel, thou shalt love your God with your whole self, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself (paraphrased)’. It is then and only then that peace can prevail.
For those of you who have not read my two books, Wilderness Cry and Peace in Spirituality, I strongly urge you to do so, that you may obtain a clear understand of what you just read.
WHAT IF—how many thousands, maybe millions, of times have we heard or uttered the expression ‘what if’. It is literally as ‘common as houseflies’. “What if she hadn’t said that”; “what if that storm had hit us directly”; “what if he hadn’t broken his ankle in the third quarter”—and on and on and on.
The implications of all those ‘what ifs’ are consequences. There is always a consequence for every action of any kind whether physical, or mental—change always occurs. And we are continually questioning ourselves and others about the potential consequence of a ‘what if’—a different course of action or reaction.
The ‘what if’ I want to address today is Jesus. When Jesus appeared on the public scene, the world was in the same state of corruption as we are witnessing today. The Roman empire had expanded extensively in all directions. The Jews also were under Roman rule and were basically enslaved by Rome. However, they were different—they believed in ‘a one true God’, while the rest of the world was pagan. The Jews had long since devised and orchestrated a form of government whereby the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The rich included the King, the High Priest, and the Sanhedrin.
The ruling Roman governors had long since determined that it would be much less burdensome to allow the Jews to continue their form of government, provided they did so in a cooperative manner. It was a ‘convenience’ arrangement for both parties—the Romans had to expend less military manpower while the King and High Priest could legally continue to fleece their subjects.
As I mentioned in previous communication, Aslan, a masterful student of the history of Jesus’ day, noted that there were many insurgents desiring and campaigning to overthrow the Jewish government in an effort and fight for their freedom from Roman dominance. Each, in turn, received the same treatment—death by crucifixion. Those crucifixions all took place on the highest, most visible spot on the road to Jerusalem—it was called Golgotha. The purpose of that site was to be a ‘clear warning’ to would-be traitors.
Jesus knew that his teaching would be considered treason. The Jewish law prescribed retribution for most personal crimes as ‘tit for tat’—‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. Jesus, however, recognized the untenableness of such a system. He could see clearly that the Jew ‘lick for lick’ legal system only fostered hostility among people. More importantly, he realized that love and acceptance were the only dictums by which people could live in harmony. So he preached extreme heresy—‘Love your God with your all and love your neighbor as yourself’ (paraphrased). Desperately, he tried to convince his disciples of that truth before his ultimate fate came to reality. We’ll never know for sure whether or not he was successful.
What we do know is that, just as all traitors, he was convicted of treason and crucified. After his death, all sorts of stories were written and rewritten with the ultimate fate of his teaching being basically discarded or ignored. By the year 325 AD, his so-called followers (Christians) were in total discord with one another—perpetual bickering, quarrelling, and even fighting among themselves. That atmosphere prompted the Emperor Constantine to commission them create a Christian Church of their liking—it would become the ‘official Religion of the Roman Empire’.
The Church they established was patterned exactly after Judaism—Jesus’ teaching of love were totally ignored. Instead of an all loving, all forgiving, all accepting God who permeated every tiny aspect of creation with his Spirit, they promulgated a God separate from his creation—a God who was ‘just and merciful’—seldom loving. Just like the Jews, Christians created a God who could be bargained with—he could ‘knock you on your butt or send you to hell one second’ or handle you like a little lamb’ the next—a truly schizoid God.
So, look around at what we have—an entire world at war or threating war perpetually. So, what about the ‘what ifs’?
What if the followers of Jesus had perpetuated his teaching of the universality of God—‘split a peace of wood and ill be there, lift a rock and find me there’? What if they had accepted Jesus’ teaching that everything they ate and drank was the substance of God, while being ever-mindful and thankful for their God’s loving sustenance—the word eucharist means ‘thanksgiving’. What if his followers had perpetuated his teaching that God is ‘all love’, and , therefore, our command is to love and accept our God as all loving, while, simultaneously, accepting our neighbor with that same love. What would be the ‘consequences’ of such what ifs?
I would freely suggest to you that the consequences of such ‘what ifs’ would be an entirely different world from ours. There would be no monstrous buildings erected under the guise of ‘pleasing God’—built on the backs of literal slave labor and costing billions of dollars to both build and maintain. There would be no hierarchy lording over their subjects, fleecing their money and distributing power among themselves—does any of that ring true with the Jewish religion of Jesus’ day? There wouldn’t be a preacher on every ‘street corner’, telling you that he’ll show you the way to heaven for a ‘pretty penny’—and each of them has a different way.
What if there were genuine ‘love’ of God and neighbor rather than the ‘greed’ exhibited in Jesus’ Judaism and perpetuated through religion today? Jesus despised religion and he flatly said so—he called them hypocrites. Paul, likewise, despised religion. You should read Professor Garry Wills’ book, What Paul Meant. If you haven’t already, you need to read my books Wilderness Cry and Peace in Spirituality. You would get a real ‘what if’ perspective in their reading.
If Jesus’ followers had heeded his advice, there likely would be peace in the world. However , the lure of the ‘almighty dollar’ led them away from Jesus and us all, who are God—we are of God’s substance (spirit)—we are God’s children—Jesus is our brother.
MIRACLES—Do you believe in them—if so, why—if not why? I suspect that most who do believe in miracles do so because they have been taught (led to believe) that by begging God to so something spectacular for them, sometimes it actually happens. Of course, there is usually an associated anticipation that it will happen—and the greater the anticipation over an entirely menial request, the greater the likelihood that the request will come to fruition.
Now let’s review miracles from an historical perspective. If you will recall, all pre-Christian religion was bases on mythology, astrology and superstition—there was very little science (known truths) about anything—the earth was flat, the sun was the center of the universe etc. Therefore, imaginations ran wildly rampant. The tricksters (Magi) soon caught on that they could impress people and control their imaginations very readily.
The Zodiac had long since been recognized as the controlling influence over literally everything. Therefore a Magus (magician), who was readily recognized as an expert in interpreting the constellations and their activities, had little trouble convincing his audience that he was performing a miracle right before their very eyes. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is filled with descriptions of miracles, one after the other.
Aslan, a super credentialed student of such matters, in his book ZEALOT, relates that by the time Jesus appeared on the scene, there were literally hundreds of ‘miracle workers’ roaming the Mid-east. Many of them were attempting to generate a rebellion against the Roman rule, and were using their magical show of power to garner followers in their coup attempts. The Jewish hierarchy were fearful of any such anarchy, and gave them all the same treatment for such treason— crucifixion.
Jesus, also was a ‘miracle worker’—at least that’s what the biblical writers say. But he wasn’t crucified for that—he was considered a treasonist because he preached a philosophy of love in contrast to the Jewish eye for an eye—. Jesus was a super genius. He readily understood human nature—he understood that we each are different people with different personalities and traits. He knew that nothing could be in existence without the presence of its creator (God) being in it, and that included himself, you and me—‘Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift a rock and you’ll find me there’.
I am as convinced as I’m sitting in my seat, that Jesus was not a ‘miracle worker’. Those who were with him and those who wrote about him had all been indoctrinated with the Magi understanding—undoubtedly, they figured their stories about Jesus would be more impressive if a few miracles were thrown in here and there. I suppose we’ll never know in this life what those who followed Jesus, as well as those who wrote about him, actually understood and wrote—so distorted is the re-written Word.
In any event, here’s my take—miracles involving physical change are an absolute impossibility—here’s why. I have defined the essence of God thus: God is a Perfect Rational Being. That perfection means he cannot possibly change anything—if he did, he would no longer be perfect. He would be reverting into the temporal world of change. Remember, time is a measure of change—God exists in a state of Eternity where no change is possible—there is no time in eternity.
What God did do with his Perfect Intellect, was to visualize each of the perfect particles of energy (quanta) which make up everything in existence. Upon ‘seeing them’ in his intellectual mind, he said ‘I love them, I choose them, I accept them, I Will them to be.That Will of God is the Holy Spirit—by necessity, it is branded onto each perfect particle so that they remain perfect. They have done so for 13.7 billion years and will continue so until God’s plan has been executed to completion.
Now, 13.7 billion years is the ‘time measure of change’ which we humans are able to observe. But, each of those particles is perfect in both form and function, meaning each is unchanging and unchangeable, so guess what—they, each, have always existed in eternity—they are God. So Jesus didn’t know Quantum Mechanics (particle physics) as we do, but he did know that his Father was present in everything or it couldn’t be—that is verified in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas by his response to his disciples when they asked him ‘when are you going to restore the kingdom’, he replied, ‘the kingdom of God is spread our all over the earth and you don’t see it. Remember, the Jews were expecting the Messiah to restore Paradise just for them—that’s what they had been told and believed for centuries.
So, from my philosophical perspective, no physical miracle is possible. Certainly, many instances of so-called miracles occur randomly. However there is an exact scientific explanation for each—that explanation may not be readily obvious, but its there. Remember when it wasn’t obvious that the earth was round? Our knowledge base has expanded so dramatically since the days of mythology, astrology, superstition, witchcraft, and the likes—who would ever have imagined putting a human on the moon or on to Mars. Strange as it may seem, we’re just scratching the surface of understanding the truths of God’s Perfect Intellect—the scientific explanation of any and all ‘miracles’ will be apparent some day.
For a fuller understanding read Wilderness Cry and Peace in Spirituality.
PRAYER AND PRAYING—Do you pray? If so, to whom do you pray, and for what purpose—what expectations do you have from your prayer? Have you ever been disappointed or felt rejected because your prayers ‘weren’t answered?—I have many, many times.
As a small child, through adolescence, and teen-age to adulthood, I was taught to pray incessantly. I was taught that there were basically four types of prayer—contrition, whereby we acknowledge our sins, beg forgiveness, and vow to never sin again—petition whereby we beg God for favors—thanksgiving whereby we thank God for the favors we have received and, more importantly—intercession, whereby we beg the Virgin Mary and other Saints in heaven to implore God to hear and honor our prayer requests.
Early on in my life, all of that seemed logical basically because I was taught that way. I spent thousands of hours on my knees begging God and the saints for everything imaginable. I can vividly remember dozens of times kneeling on the hard wood floor of our little tin-roofed, three room shack saying the rosary begging Mary too intercede with God to protect us from terrible lightening, wind and hail storms. Parenthetically, I might add, if you have never been in such a building during a heavy hail storm, you have no idea what a terrible sound that is—it would frighten the wits out of the devil, so to speak. By the way, our little house never got blown away nor struck by lightening—so, the assumption was that God was answering our prayers.
As I grew and became educated in basic physics, I came to realize that it would have been literally impossible for lightening to strike our house—there were trees ninety to one hundred feet tall standing near-by—they certainly would have sent up a charged plume directing the bolt to them. On the other hand, I can still hear the twang of lightening bolts hitting the railroad rails that ran only a few yards in front of our house—that twang could be heard running along those rails for miles. In light of all the ‘science’ which we didn’t know at the time, prayers got the credit for our house being protected—note how assumptions can be so erroneous at times—very often may get us in trouble.
About the time I became nine to ten years old, I became an altar boy in the Catholic church—that meant a whole lot more kneeling on hard-wood altar steps. But I was dedicated and just knew that the more I hurt, the more God loved me. After two or three years of that intense praying, and observing that the overt things we prayed for, even as an entire congregation, never even once came to fruition, I began questioning why God was not answering our prayers—after all, we were the ‘one true church’ founded by Jesus and perpetuated by the apostles—why would God not respond to us? I hadn’t even heard of Islam yet. I did, however, know that the Jews were unbelievably wicked people because they killed Jesus. So, I asked my priest for whom I had great respect. He told me, ‘it was God’s will’.
I was thirteen at the time and had already begun to think clearly and independently. It occurred to me that, if God’s will couldn’t be changed by all that praying, we were not only wasting our time and effort, but maybe we were actually offending God by begging him for something he didn’t want to do—I was analyzing.
At that very moment, I began questioning the nature of my God—who exactly was this God I had been taught about so rigorously and vigorously? I was well aware of the open animosity exhibited by many local Protestant preachers against Catholicism—the local radio stations carried their messages daily. They preached about the biblical God incessantly, and were always railing against Catholics—how come? We had the Bible also—what was different between ours and theirs—was their God different from ours? Because I didn’t know the answers to any of them, each of those observations and questions lingered with me and pestered me continually. The only thing I did believe (know) was that God’s will (whoever he was) could not be changed.
I was like ‘lost in a fog’—I couldn’t make heads nor tails out of the ‘God situation’. Oh I had been well indoctrinated in all of the Church rituals surrounding Christmas, Wise men (astrologers), Holy Week, Jesus’ Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension, the Immaculate Conception of Mary’s mother, Mary’s Assumption into heaven, plus all of the Holy Days which mandated attendance at Mass—they all mandated prayers of extreme contrition, petition, and vigorous intercession—not a whole lot of thanksgiving except on Thanksgiving Day. Of course, the Catholic Mass is a ‘sacrificial offering’ as appeasement to an ‘angry God’. I was confused by all the mystery and ‘magic’ surrounding the God issue and religion.
Even though I wasn’t aware of Islam per se, I was well aware of the Mohammedans (Moors) who had conquered the Holy Land and even invaded Europe all the way to Portugal. I was taught extensively in Catholic religion class about the Crusades and their ‘justification’. In addition, I had already learned about the existence of Hindus and Buddhists but didn’t know much about their religion—it didn’t matter much because they all were wrong—at least that’s what I was told.
As I entered college and studied philosophy including Logic, I came to understand clearly that nothing has ‘meaning’ without a clear ‘essential definition’. I immediately went looking for an essential definition of God—I couldn’t find one—there wasn’t one. I didn’t know it at the time, but no one had ever been able to define God’s essence—many had tried; all failed. I vowed that I would—it took sixty years and a whole lot of luck but I did.
Driven by a continual curiosity ‘frame of mind’ of, I stumbled upon a video course in Quantum Mechanics (particle physics). Oh, I had been well educated in Chemistry, Classical Physics, Biology, etc.—I knew that atoms were composed of protons, neutron, and electrons, but I didn’t know what the protons and neutrons were composed of. I knew that light was composed of photons which traveled in wave form, but I didn’t know that a photon could and does exist in a particle (quantum) state. It was a very long course—24 forty five minute video lectures.
What I discovered in that course was startling—suddenly I knew who God is—God is a Perfect Rational being. That Perfection is exhibited in everything in existence. There is absolutely nothing in existence that is not a perfect example of what it was intended to be. Likewise everything in existence is prefect in function—everything functions exactly as it was designed for its state of existence. More importantly, each quantum of energy is identical to its counterparts—they, being perfect, unchanging and unchangeable already and always have existed in eternity—they are God.
So, with that knowledge and understanding, what legitimate prayers do we have—lets examine:
Contrition—What is its value? Only when we confess to ourselves—when we admit to ourselves our extreme greed (selfishness) in whatever way it has manifested itself in us, and we vow to ourselves to change our ‘wicked ways’, does it have value. Putting the burden of our sin on God by blasphemously asking him to ‘change us’ is ‘putting the cart before the horse’. God is perfect—he cannot possibly change or be changed. God has already accepted (forgiven) our sin through Jesus.
Petition—another misdirected form of nonsense. You’re only setting yourself up for either disappointment or disillusionment. Either way, if you pray and it doesn’t happen, you may think God doesn’t love you or that you didn’t pray hard enough or that you weren’t worthy—both d– and d–. If you pray and it does happen, you may think you’re ‘special’ in God’s eyes. Its like praying that your child’s appendectomy will be successful and it is; did your prayer cause that? What if you hadn’t prayed and it was successful, what is that? What if you prayed and it wasn’t successful—your child died, or if you didn’t pray and your child died and you feel guilty? Again both d– and d–.
Intercession—Now here’s a really good one; begging someone else who may have more influence to intercede for you. The same principle applies as petition—the only difference is the middle-man/woman.
Thanksgiving—now here’s a really interesting one. We know that God, being perfect, is perfect love. That means that he loves (accepts) us the way we are without any ‘strings attached’—he proved that through Jesus. Human nature, being as it is, would demand that grateful people express an attitude of appreciation. While God has absolutely no expectation of returned thanks, I believe it would do us good and maybe make us a little more loving (accepting) of our neighbor if we at least occasionally contemplated God’s perfect love and expressed our gratitude to him. In light of that I believe our only truly justifiable prayer is ‘Thank you Lord God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit (will of God) for my life, for my sustenance, and for my eternal salvation. Amen, Amen, Amen’.
I am aware that many of you have read my two books, Wilderness Cry and Peace in Spirituality and are tired of hearing about them, but for the few who haven’t, my philosophy is laid out clearly in them. You may want to investigate.
CRYING OVER SPILT MILK—How many times I’ve heard the expression, ‘Ain’t no need in crying over spilt milk’—I suspect many of you have heard the same or similar expressions. The meaning of that exhortation, of course, is that ‘what’s done is done and can’t be undone’. So rather than cry and moan about it, get on with meaningful acceptance or change if possible. If the undesired event was your fault, make whatever adjustment necessary to prevent its happening again. On the other hand, if you were the recipient of such untoward activity through no fault of your own, try as best you can to avoid the perpetrators—sometimes, it may seem unavoidable resulting in a self-felt justification for defending yourself.
Throughout history, people have felt ‘justified’ in bring grief upon others. In the Bible, it started in Genesis with Cain slaying his brother Able and continued with a procession of skirmishes and wars involving the Hebrews—at times, even God got into the fray. At one time the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians for forty years, but they dutifully endured their hardship, and eventually escaped. However, their escape was no ‘picnic’—they wandered haplessly and seemingly helplessly in the desert in rout to the ‘Promised Land’. At times they lost faith in their God and began worshiping idols. That activity prompted their leader Moses to fabricate the Ten Commandments, the breech of which became known as sin with attached dire consequences. Somehow they persevered all of their hardships and eventually reached the ‘Promised land’. Life there, however, was no ‘bed of roses’—there seemed always to be some adversary desiring to conquer and enslave them—guess what—there still is.
The point I’m making is this; the Jews seemed never to ‘cry over spilt milk’—through ‘thick and thin’, they always seemed to ‘pick up the pieces’ and move on. They were, in fact, constantly crying out to their God for help. At one time, when they were being threatened with extinction by a Philistine giant, a lad named David took that giant down with a sling-shot—he eventually became king. I might note, parenthetically, that sling-shots are featured big-time in my book, Growing up in Fancy Farm, Kentucky.
Strange how things happen—four thousand and more years later, they finally are able to begin making peace with their neighbors.
Fast forward to Jesus. He saw the inequity in the Jewish society. Also he deplored their philosophy of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. He spoke of love as the answer.—that got him killed. He knew it would but he didn’t ‘cry about it’. We don’t know for certain what his followers understood and actually wrote about Jesus’ teachings. What we do know is that , during the next three hundred years, there were literally hundreds of Christian factions which sprang up all over the Roman Empire—they bickered and fought among themselves so much that Emperor Constantine commissioned them to form a single Christian Church which he made the official religion of the Roman empire. Of course that church had a hierarchy which put itself in charge—the underlings had no choice. I suspect many of them did cry but to no avail.
During all that activity, one thing became clear—white Europeans came to consider themselves as superior to all other forms of humanity. They considered black Africans as little better than gorillas. They spoke of native Americans as ‘savages’. It may surprise you, as it did me, to learn that in the year 1452, Pope Nicholas V issues a Papal Bull, ‘Dum Diversas’, in which he authorized the European invasion of Asia, Africa, and the Americas with enslavement of their inhabitants—and basically they did in many areas.
From our perspective, the most affected seemed to be the Black Africans and the Native Americans. We all know the rest of the story—the Natives were relocated to reservations—the blacks were bartered like animals as slaves to white European Americans. The Black African Americans eventually won their freedom, but the scourge of ‘racism’ hung over their heads. Discrimination against blacks was generally universal—many blacks seem to think it still is, and they may be right.
My point is this—many, many black Americans have risen above that scourge—they realized that ‘crying over spilt milk’ would only keep them ‘beat down’. They ‘held their heads high, became educated, successful, and some or our country’s ‘best citizens’—they have, on fact, done it by the thousands. Yet we have this unfortunate group who are incited by a few to keep ‘crying’ because their great and great, great grandpa was a slave.
Our job, as I see it, is to encourage those of that ilk to ‘throw off the blanket of self-imposed oppression’, rise above the fray, and become productive, respected citizens in our society. Where are the churches in this conundrum? They have lost all respect. They, collectively, have been the main instigators and perpetrators of slavery from the beginning. They need desperately to make a public apology—then, and only then, can their ‘faint voice’ be heard. Until they apologize, anything they might say would be total hypocrisy—don’t hold your breath.
No, we as a society, must cease ‘crying over spilt milk’, ‘take the bull by the horns’, and offer all the encouragement, both verbal and financial necessary to help remediate this situation. There has to be a major psychological change in both the black and white communities before improvement can occur. We all must quit ‘crying over spilt milk’. History cannot be changed—its effects can and must be reversed. It takes all sides to make it happen—you can ‘lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink’.
I have outlined my supporting philosophy in two books, Wilderness Cry, nd Peace in Spirituality. They are available on-line both hard-copy and e-books.
On a personal note, my upbringing was in some ways similar to many blacks—the main difference was we were not slaves. I was raised in a strictly pioneer situation—three room shack by the railroad track—five brothers, no electricity or convenience of any kind. The one thing we has was extremely hard-working, dedicated parents. We were pure paupers raised in the heart of the ‘Great Depression, but the one thing my parents refused to do was ‘cry over spilt milk’—much of the time we didn’t have any milk. As a result, each of us, in turn, became successful.
I have chronicled much of that life in my little book, Growing Up In Fancy Farm, Kentucky. Most of the hundreds who have read it have expressed awe and inspiration, as well as history and humor in its reading. It is available only from me (email@example.com)—cost of book is $15 plus $5 for mailer and postage in US.
My advice to all is ‘hold your head high’ and never ‘cry over spilt milk’.
SLAVERY AND RACISM-Slavery is a binding legal ownership of one human being by another accompanied by an obligation of the owned to work for and obey the orders of the owner. Racism is the perception that people of a certain race are inferior, in one way or another, to people of their own race. These two subjects have been the objects of ‘social division’ seemingly forever.
Slavery has its most notable roots in the book of Genesis. There, Abraham’s wife, Sarah, because she was barren, directs him to mate with her ‘slave girl’ and bring forth a child. The slave girl whose name was Hagar was noted to be Egyptian. Abraham did as directed and mated with Hagar, the slave girl. She conceived and bore a son named Ishmael—presumably, he became the progenitor of essentially all of the Arabic peoples.
It is also noteworthy that the entire Hebrew tribe eventually became enslaved by the Egyptians. That came about, as you will recall, by virtue of a famine which struck the Hebrews necessitating the purchase of grain from the prosperous Egyptians. The Hebrew leader at the time was Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, the son of Isaac who was born to Sarah, Abraham’s barren wife, after the birth of Ishmael. That ‘miraculous’ transaction was ‘arranged by God’ so that Abraham’s heir would be from a Hebrew rather than from an Egyptian. Strange, isn’t it how ‘what goes around, comes around’?
In any event, after a forty year tenure of enslavement, the Hebrews escaped from Egyptian bondage. However, along their nomadic way they developed a legal system involving slavery. Their system involved enslaving ‘their own people’ for a specified period of time as restitution for indebtedness. They had rules for enslavement of men only, women only, and, at times, entire families. Quite obviously, those rules persisted in one form or another for thousands of years because, in at least two places, we hear Paul in his epistles exhort the the slaves to be ‘respectfully subservient to their masters in all things’ (paraphrased). Paul, of course was a Jew and knew the Jewish law quite well.
Strangely, I have been unable to find any teaching of Jesus on that subject. We know that Jesus was a zealous traitor—that in itself was sufficient to get himself crucified—he needed no additional fuel for the fire. Certainly, if he had condemned slavery, it would have been tantamount to throwing gasoline on an open fire. It is reasonable to suspect (possibly assume) the writers and re-re-re-writers of the New Testament avoided that subject—they had all of the support for slavery they needed directly from Hebrew Law—no interference from Jesus needed. Maybe they assumed that ‘if Jesus didn’t address slavery through their writings, no one would notice’.
Well, as a matter of basic historical fact, no one did notice until Abraham Lincoln came along. He freed the black African slaves, and in doing so, he caused and won a civil war— got himself assassinated as a result—sounds a little like the Jesus story, doesn’t it?
Now, I would like to look each and every one of you in the face directly and ask you, individually, ‘who was responsible for the enslavement of the African people?’ I can tell you in a heartbeat, it was the Roman Catholic and European Protestant (Christian?) Churches. If any one of them ever offered a ‘word of dissent’, it was with the ‘tiny whisper voice of a mute sparrow’. You will recall that once upon a time the Pope in Rome was the most powerful person on earth—he crowned the kings. When he fell into disfavor with Martin Luther et. al., it wasn’t over the concept of slavery—they all condoned it.
I might add, that in all of my eighty seven years of attending Catholic Church, I have never to my recollection heard one single murmur suggesting the immorality of slavery. In addition, during seventeen years of Catholic education, it was never suggested that slavery might be wrong. I often wondered why—I have, on fact, asked the question often—I never got an answer—I think I know the answer. The Church stood to lose way too much power, money and control by getting involved in that fray. So they didn’t—they still haven’t. They play their same old ‘sly game’—knowing full-well that very few care and that fewer yet will research the history, they wait it out—in a few short years, those old dudes of us who do care will be dead and gone—they conveniently ‘sweep it under the carpet’ and pretend it never happened. That same old dog has been hunting for hundreds of years, but I suspect he’s getting old and tired—likely wont hunt much longer.
In my humble opinion, that immoral stance by so-called Christianity is the foundation for the civil unrest in our society today. There are many great black citizens who have risen above the foam, and ‘command the respect of all’. However, there is a ‘seething volcanic seam’ being incessantly utilized for ‘destructive political purposes’—and the Christian leaders remain silent. The ‘agitators’ continually ‘demand respect’—no one gets respect by demanding it—yes, they might get ‘attention’—respect, no.
So how does ‘racism’ play in this game. I’ll tell you how—it is perpetuated by those ill-intentioned, power-seeking individuals who have long recognized it as a ‘political weapon’. I’ll ask one more simple question; ‘do you think white, black, brown, red children are born with a racial bias?’—not the chance of a snowball in hell. Left to their own devices, their skin color would never be an issue—likely, it would never even be noticed, or if so, only as a lament—‘I wish my skin were as beautiful as yours’. No, someone has to tell them how bad that color is and how, as a consequence, the person in that color is undesirable. Our children would never in a billion years be ‘racist’—it has to be inculcated—and it continues to be on all sides. Shame on everyone.
If you would only read my two little philosophy books, Wilderness Cry and Peace in Spirituality, you would recognize the foundational basis for my understanding.