within us

"There is no need to pray to a superhuman entity for God is within us."

Spinoza

Did continued use of an antichrist(antimessiah) in biblical lore allow Christianity to never be held accountable?

Jesus didn't create the antichrist. Jesus never makes mention of any antichrist, he talks about false prophets but it was his apostles, after he died, that made references to the antichrist. Since we have no idea why they make no reference to Jesus ever talking about an antichrist we are led to believe(by the church) that their writings are inspired by God, and therefore true. The church reinforces this belief and we are left understanding, according to the bible, that an antichrist will appear before the apocalypse.

What a brilliant device. Extraordinarily brilliant.

Create an antichrist so that anyone trying to better the world without adhering to religious dogma would be accused of working for the devil even though they may only be working for God and the improvement of mankind.

Belief in the antichrist allows the values of progress, modernity, and peace to be threatened.

Rejecting the idea of the antichrist, hell or the devil and replacing it with the very real moral constructs of right and wrong removes the constraints of religious dogma and allows reason to prevail.

When the idea of hellfire is lifted one can navigate the world based upon reason and self-respect.
Gods work can move forward and all of mankind can benefit, not just some.

question, as long as you can get away with it

This morning, on a walk in the dark, the moon was shrouded with clouds once again. But there was a large question mark being illuminated.

i call myself the grand inquisitor.

i'm not at all squeamish about dredging up all sorts of questions for family, friends and people i don't even know.
My mother tells me that when i was a toddler, just starting to talk, i would ask complete strangers the most awkward questions and get her involved in conversations she didn't want to have. i, of course, loved the interchange.

My mother, who was always the shy retiring type, felt immediately exposed by her upstart child, she didn't like asking questions and didn't want anyone asking her any questions. But i was the opposite, i just wanted to know about everything and wouldn't hesitate to ask.

i still do.

Close friends, say "uh" "oh," "watch out, here come the questions."

i'm completely, unabashedly, curious about all human beings. i want to know their stories, i want to know how they make decisions, i want to know their histories. i guess it is why i majored in Anthropology (the study of man). i know that i probe too deeply for some, but it makes me feel more connected to them, especially when i can understand them.

In lines, while waiting for something, i look upon it as an opportunity to meet people, and never get frustrated having to wait. i'll start the conversation going by saying something like, "Are you in a rush today?" they usually answer "yes" and off i go.

i wonder about the people who wait on me in the grocery stores, gas stations, post offices and department stores. i look in peoples cars, through their open windows, i look into any and all their eyes and try to make a small connection. i just love interacting with people.

i've had the most wonderful experiences asking people i don't know questions. i've left lines with the biggest smile on my face sometimes laughing so hard i can't start the car until i've finished chuckling.

i wonder about people i see living on the street. How did they get there, are they mentally impaired, what do their mothers know about where they are living? Especially that last question. How do their mothers cope, knowing their child is living on the street? What will she do if she doesn't know, and then finds her child? Oh! The Questions.

Which brings me to the point of this, i use questions to request information. i use questions to augment my knowledge, resolve my doubt and solve problems. The information i receive, by way of an answer, helps me to determine further courses of action.

Have they resolved any confusion i may have concerning them or their proposals?

What do i now know with certainty?

Not much you might respond.

But like many famous scientists, i question everything until i find the answer.

My desire to question impacts my entire life. i don't easily accept answers, or condemn insincerity, stupidity, greed or the treachery of human beings, instead i continue to question. i ask why, over and over. i want others to ask why.

And that is the point of this blog

question, question, question

for that is the road to peace not war.

tangled knots

The issue of tangled knots for mankind is complicated to say the least. Last year i had been thinking the world needed a new voice, someone like a Gandhi or a Mandela or a King that would appeal to all of humanity-- or at least that core inside humanity that are uniting rather than dividing factors.

i had tried to articulate this belief to friends, who agreed, a voice was needed. i had gone to a talk about religion and spirituality(something i never do) when the topic came up again. A voice being needed was the general consensus and was discussed vigorously by those attempting to examine how that could happen. During the discussion the friend i had attended the talk with asked a very pointed question.

"Could one man speak for all of humanity?"

Silence

She then followed this question by asking if the one voice would be black.

Ah ha thinks i, a white man would not be taken seriously by people of color. The white man's history world wide had been one of dominance and conquest. How then could a white man be a voice for all? This one thought then caused a series of unsettling thoughts to stream on and on for a very long time. Months.

The answer i finally latched on to was that many voices with the same message were needed. Every location around the world would need a speaker that could pass on the message without creating a hierarchy of "elders" or "experts".

The message had to be so simple it could be understood by the youngest to the oldest without any dogma or requirement of educational standards, no church or temple or mosque attendance necessary, no money spent, no edifices. The community of speakers would converse with the whole world, being united in refocusing away from violence, greed and the pursuit of power.

A quote i read somewhere addresses this, i don't know who the author is but it is on one of my many slips of paper.

"True heroes do not terrorize their fellow creatures, they try to counter aggression. The warrior should be dedicated to peace." Taking Jesus's sword of truth to fight instead of the sword of man became my mantra after i saw the shadow of an upside down heart with two swords coming out of it during a walk one night under the moon.

i had a friend who questioned why anyone would want to battle mans cruelty when the cycle of violence will continue. He called it natural and said it was a part of nature's cycle. For me, this was an acknowledgment by him of an aspect of society that i can't accept. i want the warrior that is dedicated to peace. i want the armies of peaceful soldiers to swarm like ants all over the world, spreading a message of hope not despair. Gandhi, Mandela and Martin Luther King understood how to take up the sword of truth and they succeeded in creating change.

There have always been malevolent tyrants, dictators and rulers but their violent change never lasted for they eventually failed.

To me my friend is defeated already. As long as you can ignore the disparity, accept the cruelty of man and even encourage subjugation of others you have then given your tacit approval and avowal to any kind of violence. You become part of the problem not the solution.

i call these thoughts tangled knots, for it is the age old question that religion has failed to dispel. Mankinds cruelty needs addressing, over and over, until we get it right and untangle the knots. Each community around the world needs speakers for peace.
We are all human beings why do some not think so?

why is the door closed?

What do we know?

Usually when this question is asked the questioner is asking the questioned to recite the things we know about a subject. These answers are easily accessed and the questioned can create a list of things they already know about. Most have no problem reciting things "they know."

Easy, we all say....we know certain things about our existence that we don't usually question.

But, "how do we know?"

When asked "how we know" we then have to find supporting evidence for "what we know."

Most of us don't like to have "what we know" confused with the difficult "how do we know" question. Our realities are based upon "what we know" not "how we know."

All of us are guilty of believing facts that later turned out to be myths or untruths.

Even the most basic factual assumptions can be made erroneously or can prove to be false. So how do we remain cautious before drawing conclusions?

Lots of people draw conclusions based upon "faith".
Doing this ends the conversation, for conclusions based upon "faith" cannot be questioned.

Others need more information. When you need more information sometimes you are perceived as bothersome. The bothersome person can continue to question trying to find answers while the person "who already knows" can end the conversation and not have to contend with the bothersome person anymore
or you can try to find common ground.

So, when you ponder this dilemma of knowing and having to defend that knowledge, do we all inadvertently close the door to further inquiry because "we already know?"

emotional honesty

"Openly revealing our feelings establishes credibility" Garry Spence

We are what we feel (so if we pretend to be someone who feels another way, are we committing fraud?).

Some are very good at telling the factual truth, but when it comes to the emotional truth they hide.

They hide, because they don't want to be rejected.

A simple example of emotional honesty is the daily greeting.

"Hey! How are you doing?"

"Fine", is the usual reply.

Why is it we reply, "Fine" even when it isn't exactly how we are feeling? Is it because most don't really want to know how you are feeling and saying "Fine" ends the topic rapidly?

What if instead of "Fine" we said "Darn Good" or "Awful" or "Excellent" or "So,so"?

If you say "Awful" people ask why, they comfort you and try to make you feel better after you have told them that you feel "Awful". You connect in ways that just saying "Fine" doesn't allow.

A few years ago i started saying "Darn Good" when i felt that way. It made everyone laugh and still does. A few friends started adding to it, telling me to say, "Darn Good and i hope you are darn good too". Others would tell me that because i smiled when i said "Darn Good" it made them feel good too, even if they hadn't been feeling "Darn Good".

Emotional honesty can start with the daily greeting. It does not lead to rejection but to connection in ways you might not have imagined.

Try it.

a little security

A slice of the human condition
birth
anger
peace
judgment
anger
violence
peace
myth
right
wrong
peace
opposite
parallel
optimism
pessimism
peace
anger
love
lost
love
found
anger
peace
death

Beer Lambert Law

There is an empirical relationship that relates the absorption of light to the properties of the material through which the light is traveling. Wikipedia has the above illustration of light passing through an object and coming out the other side. In the diagram, the light is at its strongest before it passes through the object. If you look closely at the object you can see light being left behind in the object and coming out dimmer on the other end.

The law tends to break down at very high concentrations, especially if the material is highly scattering. If the light is especially intense, nonlinear optical processes can also cause variances.

Taken to its extreme, mankind has the ability to scatter light or absorb it. We have a tendency to selectively absorb, reflect or transmit certain light frequencies. We might absorb all the colors of the spectrum except violet, for instance, thus, not allowing ourselves to experience all parts of the rainbow, all parts of that beautiful light.

Major religions reflect upon the light that we all seek.

We depend upon each other and we gain the light we seek through this dependence. Not the complete quotient, but enough to affect our beings in our daily lives. Anyone thinking they can go through life being completely self-sufficient is deluding themselves for we are all interdependent, interconnected, and related in ways we can hardly fathom.

Every man can unfold the latent spiritual powers within him, sweeten that dormant germ, and attain to the status of one of the world's Helpers. The Helper's are those that help others see the light by advancing peace and prosperity for all. This is the true sense of following the Christ and entering into the Kingdom of Heaven or finding the "Light".

The Second Coming will occur when conditions upon earth have progressed to where valuing all mankind comes first. Purification of the heart, by the practice of altruism, truthfulness, kindness and the other virtues so often called Christian but which are common to religions in general must be common place worldwide.

The Teacher(Jesus), like all such Teachers(Buddha, Mohammad, the apostles etc.), was pointing out the "Path" or the "Way."

It is evident that the "Coming of Christ" means the awakening of the Christ spirit in humanity and that he will not come in the rushing wind but in the still small voice of all mankind.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=24135701
Turn up the volume

lay aboard

Lay, in the nautical world, usually means to come or go. Lay aboard, means to come along side an enemy and board their boat. i've spent the past four or five years coming along side my own countries boat, the country i love, trying to board to stop the carnage.

We all want a fair wind to plot our course, to lay aboard and reach our goals.

Mankind has been told over and over not to judge.

He has been advised by "GOD" that judging others cannot be done in this world. That "GOD" will judge all upon each individuals death.

The ALLOne does not judge, anything, ever.

If there is any judging that must occur it has to happen while alive and be accounted for while alive.

We are Master's of ourselves, but we have a universal responsibility, for we are human beings first and foremost which makes us all the same.

We have to learn how to judge others that will take weapons into their hands to bring about change.

We have to learn how to teach all mankind that the use of weapons is abhorrent.

We have to learn how to teach all mankind that as long as we accept the use of weapons as part of the human condition we have tacitly approved of their use.

We have to learn how to teach all mankind to make pariahs of anyone using violence to achieve their goals.

We have to teach mankind that viewing the ability to use one's strength to overpower another is no longer acceptable.

The responsibility to prevent violence belongs to every human being alive on planet earth.

If anyone shirks that responsibility he fails at becoming a part of AllOne.

Religion to date has accorded violence a place in its dogma.

No longer will violence have a place holder, for every religion has failed to conquer violence and now, today, another method must be developed.

We have been made to accept this curse of violence upon mankind because of our failure to judge.

We have to use our judgment and judge those harshly that would consider using violence to solve a problem or reach a goal.

Every human being in the world has to come out and judge harshly any other human being that even tries to rationalize violence as a means to an end.

For violence begets more violence.

blind leading the blind

Are you blind when the light can't shine in and illuminate your life?
Do you lack visual perception based upon psychological and familial factors that govern your outward perception of the world?
Do people that are blind need special help and assistance to maneuver through life?
Are we all blind in some way that limits our ability to relate to all of mankind?
Why?

Can we clean the dirt off our lens and let the light in?

Can we learn to value all humans?

All the worlds religions teach us to value all, but once we leave the doors of the chapel, temple, mosque, or meeting hall we leave that teaching behind.

Why?

Are we all blind leading the blind?

John Godfrey Saxe's ( 1816-1887) version of the famous Indian legend, "The blind men and the Elephant".


It was six men of Indostan,
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear,
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approach'd the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," -quoth he- "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," -quoth he,-
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said- "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," -quoth he,- "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL,

So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean;
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

Fra il dire e il fare c'e di mezzo il mare

i had an Italian friend visit from Florence this past fall. During our numerous conversations an Italian saying sprang forth that was troublesome in translation. i loved how it sounded in Italian and asked for it in English. Only problem was, we didn't have the words that could accurately express it. Below is how it finally ended up sounding in English.

"The sea is between saying and doing something"


i have it over my computer and when you spend time thinking about the ramifications of this simple little sentence you get lost in wave maps on the brain.

thinking makes it so

There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.
Shakespeare

Humanity is infinitely more complicated than our Western culture suggests.

We live in a bubble of sorts.

Some who live in the Western Hemisphere believe that our reality, our construct of the world defines all human beings that are spread out over the entire earth.

Our Western culture is ruled by our history as written in the first person, US. It does not include the history of other peoples. It does not include their story, or their reading of world events. Their world view is left out of our consciousness and our conversation for our history is about US.

When we talk about changing the world we talk about it on our terms not theirs for we believe that our prosperity is the answer to the worlds woes. We believe that all mankind should enjoy life as we do.

We have no idea!

The human condition is not to feel contentment at all times.

The human condition does not have the time or inclination to reside in a meditative state.

Humans must contend daily with the realities of living.

But humans of all types can contribute to the human aim of betterment for all, peace for all and these things can be achieved in a modern world.

These things can be achieved when we take ourselves out of our reality and try and view the world from another's perspective.

A good exercise in daily living is to open up to reviewing another's point of view.

Do they have grievances that have not been acknowledged? Have they been made to feel that their reality has been marginalized or completely ignored?

Don't we all have grievances that have not been acknowledged. If those grievances were acknowledged by the parties creating the grievance could there then be a more open method for communication?

When all sides have been allowed to recite their grievances, when all sides really listen, doesn't this make the discussion not about winning but about listening?