rainbow walking

Hi Mike,
Our discussion is reminding me of the way we use to choose who plays outfield first in our sandlot ballgames…the old hand up the bat till somebody reaches the top first, method of deciding. It has occurred to me that we can go on like this forever because this is an enormous bat we’re inching our way up and neither of us is likely to ever reach the top. There may not be a top to reach. So our discussions, rather than actually facilitating a beginning of a ballgame, are likely to end up in a rainout…know what I mean?

So I’ve decided to take the initiative and let go of the bat. I’ll take the outfield and you can take the plate. I’m genuinely interested in a resolution rather than a continuation of the same ole-same ole.

Therefore, I concede to you everything you’ve previously said in relation to spirituality. I am more than willing to accept that spirituality in one form of expression or another is inescapable for mortal man…and possibly even beneficial and necessary to, as you say, provide a depth and quality to life that no other factor of man’s existence can achieve. After all, of what value is an extended life if one has no qualitative aspirations to drive the extension forward? I also cannot, in good conscious, claim that an extended life, alone, will make life more qualitatively appreciated. I wouldn’t want to live 500 years of boredom, or misery, or loneliness…and I’m sure no one else would either…so there is much merit in your arguments.

But something was said in our discussion that caught my attention…something that I believe has a bearing on how we might proceed from here, and go in another, possibly more fruitful direction.

This is the exact paragraph that stimulated my change of heart:


Specifically…what breeds disrespect?

But I need to fill in some blanks, else you’re not going to fully appreciate the direction I hope to take us in, intellectually, in pursuit of common ground.

When I was thinking on the concept of “respect” a statement from Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” came to mind, in relation to money. She wrote, “money is a only a tool of exchange. It will provide you with the means of securing your desires but it won’t replace your desires or tell you what to desire.”

I have to admit that science also may fall under this spell. It does indeed exist as a tool for the securement of our desires…but not until we establish what we desire…yes? Then I realized that what I’ve been wrestling with now for months is not to champion “science” as though it doesn’t already have enough champions, but I’ve been wrestling with why mankind doesn’t seem to “desire” a resolution to their mortality…and thus, from this lack of desire…not see our science as the best probable means of achieving a desire mankind, in the aggregate, doesn’t actually have. Yet, whenever a man falls ill he runs to science and medicine to resolve his illness in the hope of extending his life. So men do desire to live…and perhaps don’t know why. Maybe the birth of this desire has not been completed. Men know and recognize their desire to extend their lives but not in any stated purpose because…well, maybe because they don’t know why extended life is important enough to seek, or have the imagination to allow themselves to believe it can be accomplished in this life. Maybe extended life and eternal life need not be cast as opposites or enemies…yes?

Then I am forced to concede that arriving at such a recognition is not an automatic self evident given…even though men may express it as robustly as you can imagine…they perhaps have never actually wondered why it is the way it is.

So, having said all that, let me get to the point. Yours is a refreshing spirituality…the kind of spirituality that isn’t likely to lead to fundamental destructionism. So I’m wondering if perhaps your position isn’t a sort of “mutation” from the norm? (Please don’t take this the wrong way). I wonder why it always seems that men who somehow find the levers of State and the lives of billions in their hands, express spirituality in a way that leads to conflict? So often now, that it actually represents the norm and many less spiritual people shudder when a theistically acclaimed person acquires such power.

So you are the mutant. But, if there’s one thing nature and evolution has taught us, it’s that the mutant often adapts and survives, passing along its mutated code, and eventually becomes the norm, while that which was the norm, from which the mutation arose, gets absorbed back into the gene pool and fades into oblivion.

Now, getting back to my paragraph, which led me in this direction, having introduced the subject of “respect”…I want to explore a human tendency that may actually be the dichotomizing influence that determines whether spirituality follows the path of the mutation or the path of the norm.

As an ex-theist I speak with some experience and authority on this matter. As a licensed minister I have enough discernment to speak on this matter at all. My experience with converts has almost invariably followed the same path time after time. Each convert always, in a very short period of time, begin to display some very disturbing patterns of behavior. This behavior often over-shadows their well intentioned desire to be a part of the flock. Sort of a fly in the apothecary syndrome, you might say.

The tendency of which I speak, is the tendency to become spiritually arrogant and judgmental. It seems to flow from a mistaken belief…or perhaps even an intentionally generated one…that they are, having found “The Way”, somehow in possession of something that all others…often including their own brethren…do not have…and what ultimately ensues is an attitude of arrogance that leads to disrespect, warring and factions among themselves and pigeonholing every non-believer as a heathen or savage or infidel…see what I mean? Do you see how this “attitude” can lead to the destruction of human life if left unchecked or even played upon?

What’s even more catastrophic is that, in most cases, any attempt to educate or reprimand this behavior only serves to exacerbate the attitude from which it’s derived. Thus you have denominational divisions, strife within the church, competition for positions of prominence, criticizing of anyone that doesn’t believe or interpret the bible in a specific way, backbiting, arrogance, pride, dissemination, vainglory and an entire plethora of socially unbecoming behaviors.

Now, when this atmosphere is extended into the community, missionary and evangelical endeavors, POLITICS, education, economics and yes, even scientific endeavors…man is confronted with a general attitude of disrespect from such people. And if they have any authority whatsoever…Oh Lord…Katy get your gun.

What comes to mind is intolerance…an attitude that because this person has chosen what they sincerely believe to be the better path, they are somehow “right” to the exclusion of all other possible considerations. And, as I’ve argued rather convincingly…man ultimately comes to the place in any atmosphere of disrespect where “might makes right” becomes the only resolution left available.

So…after having said all of that…I’d like to know if you’d be interested in exploring possible resolutions to this dilemma…and maybe even ways to address the problem directly…sort of cutting it off at the root. I offer this in sincere confidence because of your reasoned approach and defense of your spirituality which, if all or even a majority of men could emulate, would make the prospect of considering spirituality a far less imposing figurehead that, as it has historically been expressed in the norm, almost forces a resistance from more sensible and tolerant citizens.

Now I can already anticipate most of the scriptures you may be tempted to offer that also denigrate such attitudes and behavior…yet these folks have access to these same texts…so I fail to see how the existence of the text has curbed this syndrome in any way. Perhaps something more direct is needed? Maybe a complete over-haul of the evangelical base from which all men are drawn to a spiritual life…I don’t know. What do you think?

Now, please do not misconstrue any of this to mean I am anything more than an atheist. This has little if nothing to do with my personal worldview as it applies directly to me…but are you willing to discuss these inherent problems religion creates for itself…and all of us in the long run? This is a test of your faith…can you criticize your own from an objective position and seek a resolution? It is, after all, the resolution that looms as a higher vision than the man…yes?

Let me assure you, I sought a resolution to this dilemma for years from within the body of believers. I tried different denominations and different churches within the same denomination...all to no avail. The crisis is built into the message. It can't be avoided. Every religion begins its evagelical life by depicting something being intrinsically wrong with either the man or the world in which he lives, and thus the reason men aught to join that specific religion...and once they do...the implied "rightness" of that religion and spirituality is automatically conferred upon them...and this ultimately finds its expression in the behavior patterns I listed above...it's inescapable...except there are exceptions...but how to turn the mutant into the norm...that is the quest.

As an example, I was confronted again, just last night at a function our friends prepared as a 4th of July celebration where we were invited along with their family members who we had never met.

My wife just happened to be talking to the wife of my friend about her trip, several years ago, to Australia. Immediately one of the brother-in-laws, who I had never met and had no idea was a fundamental Baptist believer, chimed in with the observation that only 10 percent of the Australian population was christian, while the other 90 percent were all quote "heathens" un-quote. Needless to say I had to exorcise an inordinate amount of restraint not to embarrass us in front of our friends in their house among their family. But you get my drift...yes? Now multiply this attitude with roughly 75 or 80% of all spiritually minded people sprinkled among roughly 10 or twelve major religions around the world encompassing billions of minds and you should see why the mutation must be selected and the norm cast away as unfruitful to mankind.

I doubt hardly any of these well intentioned people are fully aware of their attitude and this just makes them that much more dangerous...manipulative to the extreme.

?

I have no idea what specific, if any, religion you adhere to, if you observe holy days or express your spirituality in any religious rites or rituals...these things are incidental to our discussion. In the bible Jesus declares that he came not to bring peace, but a sword, (and please understand I have wrestled with that scripture from every imaginable position so don't waste your time trying to explain it). But the fact remains this ultimately becomes the reality and, true or not, the reality that all too often leads to the death and misery of untold millions of innocent people. And his message is not the only one, by any means, that conveys the same imagined authority to do whatever it takes to turn the globe into a camp of theism.

Is there a way to beat this sword into a ploughshare? To acknowledge that man desires...requires...peace to get on with the business of living. I don't know a single atheist who cares one whit about how many churches or converts are made or constructed around the world. Like myself, we primarily worry about the net effect of this message and the "manipulators" who inevitably take it to the streets and turn it into blood...human blood, from which all life flows out, along with all hope and all peace.

I see no other way but to work with my fellow man who, for whatever reason, chooses to believe and accept spirituality as his means of adding quality to his life. I say more blessings to him and if this works for him I will do anything I can to help him hold his way...but not at the expense of having him use his other strengths to force me, against my will, to live in a world of violence that his intractability and ignorance of manipulation has made possible.

So I look for the mutant...the mind that is not manipulatable from within...the mind capable of becoming a lepers bell of an approaching doom perpetrated by unthinking acceptance of disrespect as the only interpretation to acquire converts, at the point of a gun if necessary. A mind capable of grasping that "Right" does not make "Might", that in the end, none of us aught neglect our mortality on so feeble an argument.

So...let's play ball!

NonContradiction

Well, if that is what he means by "absolute", then why doesn't he say so? I am not a mind reader. First of all, the manner in which I have used the word "absolute" hasn't been a secret. I have stated many times what I mean by absolute. Secondly, the way I have used the word is consistent with the way it is used in reference to an omnimax God.

I am not morally neutral, nor do I believe in moral absolutes.

Mike

Well now. That was refreshing. Very interesting questions, and I'll gladly give it a go, but there is an assumption you seem to have that might merit a challenge.

You have described a wonderfully consistent phenomenon that has indeed been addressed in scripture. Quite explicitly, I believe, in the books that I consider to be holy (of which the Bible is one, but not the only one). If you don't mind horribly much, I may sometime indulge in quoting a few verses to show that religion is not without introspection. The assumption I question is not whether the phenomenon you describe exists, it undoubtedly does in my religion as well as in others. I question, however, the notion that such arrogance need be an inevitable result of finding an unusually efficacious "Way" of being. What causes me to wonder is the fact that such arrogance exists in spite of the explicit contradiction such feelings exhibit towards a way of being that at its core decries arrogance.

rw: Specifically…what breeds disrespect?

mike: I believe that a world view that necessitates competition is the source of disrespect. This view is not a result of one believing that their way of being is better, but a result of believing that resources are limited and if we are to dole them out they must be doled first to the "better" way. Religion is not the source of conflict, but a belief in limited resources is. Religionists who hold this belief will compete against religions that they view as less worthy. But this competition is not exlusively the domain of religion. Wherever such belief is found there will be competition (e.g. my earlier example of science departments competing for funding). This view is found in my profession as well as among my fellow religionists. As an example, a friend in the developmental area recently complained that her boyfriend, who works upstairs doing cognitive science, commented that developmental psychology is less scientific then his chosen area of emphasis. For him, measuring reaction time in college students is more objective then looking for patterns of behavior in infants. At its root, I believe, this compulsive need to validate one's profession stems from a fear of losing resources. Which stems from a belief that resources are limited.

rw: So I’m wondering if perhaps your position isn’t a sort of “mutation” from the norm?

mike: Not subscribing to a view of random evolution makes it difficult for me to adopt this metaphor. I rather think that an original source (or an originating system) contains infinite components. Each component specializes in some way that is ecological for the whole system. Specialization would be the word I would use in place of mutation. In psychological statistics we sometimes use factor analysis to find commonalities among commonalities, often until we find a "latent" variable, or a general factor (in intelligence theory this is called "G"). In the realm of religion, True Religion would be analogous to this "G" or general factor. It is hypothetically possible to get a view of "G" from some type of factor analysis, but an underlying assumption is that you have all of the manifest variables or components of a system that exist available to you in your study. However, competition within components of a system may result in the extinction of some specific manifestations or components of the general factor. Let me use a more specific analogy. My body is a system of interconnected systems or components. Overemphasis on one specialized system to the exlusion of others may result in some type of extinction of some subset of my being. If my tonsils or appendix falls off as a result, I may still function as a "mutant" or rather a system with some overspecialized parts. If my head falls off, of course, I am dead--and really begin to stink. Much of religion today (as well as other human endeavors) is analogous to fingers and toes, arms and legs, appendixes and tonsils, headless bodies and bodiless heads running here and there imagining that they are in competition with each other for resources. All saying "I have no need of thee" to the others.

So rather than being a mutation, I aspire to be a representative of a wholistic system. Now while on the surface it may apear that I am also saying "my way is best." If I truly understand and subscribe to a wholistic, systemic view I can never say "therefore I have no need of thee." My world view may be more adaptive because it is more general, but because it is more general it necessitates acceptance of all specific components of the whole--as well as a recognition that I do in fact have "need of thee." Now if all of the parts of the system were available (running around trying to be independent) I might use something analogous to factor analysis to put them all together, find all of their similarities, until the body is reconstructed. The problem is that once parts of a system become overspecialized and reject other parts they begin to die--to become extinct. Gradually over time we are left with a collection of parts that will never, no matter how they are assembled, resemble the original whole. The only way to get back to the whole truth is to start over with a new system. In religion this restoration of the whole truth is accomplished through what has been called "dispensations" of the fullness of the gospel. At each historical dispensation (Adam, Abraham, Noah, Christ, etc.), however, there has been a near immediate entropy set in with parts of the system warring against their own members. The system is dissolved, and the separate parts begin to die off. This happened even after the time of Christ. In fact, Paul prophecied that before Christ's second coming there would be a "falling away" first. This is what I believe to be a more accurate representation of the history of man (as opposed to random mutation).

rw: I'd like to know if you’d be interested in exploring possible resolutions to this dilemma…and maybe even ways to address the problem directly…sort of cutting it off at the root.

mike: My belief is that a new dispensation has begun. At a new dispensation you have a prototypical whole "body" again, you now know where all of the components should go, and reintegration of surviving systems becomes possible. But to make this reintegration possible, and to avoid another disintegration we must indeed go to the root--I believe this root of disintegration is a false belief in limited resources.

rw: I have no idea what specific, if any, religion you adhere to, if you observe holy days or express your spirituality in any religious rites or rituals...these things are incidental to our discussion.

mike: Not entirely incidental since my views of spirituality stem from my religious training. My religion is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints--about which you have probably heard something--and some of which may even have been accurate.

rw: In the bible Jesus declares that he came not to bring peace, but a sword, (and please understand I have wrestled with that scripture from every imaginable position so don't waste your time trying to explain it).

mike: Might I not indulge in a brief attempt? You should know by now that I find it difficult to resist a challenge. Matthew chapter 10 (wherein is found the verse you quoted) contains instructions and warnings given from Christ to his apostles. After giving instructions he warns them: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Imagine that scenario. You have a group of wolves lounging together wondering what to do with themselves and along come a bunch of sheep. The sheep as we know are harmless, and wise, but the wolves are neither. Now wouldn't this be analogous to sending a "sword?" You know by sending the sheep that there is going to be some violence done. But the sheep won't be doing it, the wolves will. Why, you may ask send sheep into such perilous circumstances? To uncover who are the real sheep and who are the real wolves. Because, whereas flocks of sheep sometimes may have a wolf in sheep's clothing, packs of wolves may also have an occasional sheep in wolf's clothing: The proverbial "lost sheep." The apostles were sent to find the lost sheep that were mingling with wolves. Now wolves don't like it much when you reduce their numbers by drawing out the sheep (sheep with identity crises). Wolves hunt in packs and with fewer of them (minus those who converted to sheepdom) they will be less able to compete for the resources that they imagine to be limited. Thus, when they see any attempt at drawing from their numbers, they show their teeth, or sword whatever the case may be.

rw: Is there a way to beat this sword into a ploughshare?

mike: Perhaps finding the sheep behind the wolf's hide. But as long as there are those who insist on being wolves, on hunting in packs because they fear the loss of resources, there will be swords. Alas, if only we could remember that the sun shines on all of us--and there is plenty to go around. When Christ was about to die he broke bread with his disciples and told them to do this again in remembrance of him. He wanted them to re-member: Or to become members again of a whole. To be one with him and his father. This was the gospel he preached. That there should be a bringing back together of parts. But he knew that there would be some who resisted it--even with the sword--believing that they were competing entities rather than systemic components of a whole.

rw: I see no other way but to work with my fellow man who, for whatever reason, chooses to believe and accept spirituality as his means of adding quality to his life.

mike: Then you are doing exactly what must be done. You are re-membering.

rainbow walking

mike: Well now. That was refreshing. Very interesting questions, and I'll gladly give it a go, but there is an assumption you seem to have that might merit a challenge.

You have described a wonderfully consistent phenomenon that has indeed been addressed in scripture. Quite explicitly, I believe, in the books that I consider to be holy (of which the Bible is one, but not the only one). If you don't mind horribly much, I may sometime indulge in quoting a few verses to show that religion is not without introspection. The assumption I question is not whether the phenomenon you describe exists, it undoubtedly does in my religion as well as in others. I question, however, the notion that such arrogance need be an inevitable result of finding an unusually efficacious "Way" of being. What causes me to wonder is the fact that such arrogance exists in spite of the explicit contradiction such feelings exhibit towards a way of being that at its core decries arrogance.

rw: Yes, let’s question and seek answers. And while we’re re-membering, let’s not forget the very real bloody history of religion and its facilitation of this history. Let’s allow history a voice in the seeking. As to your question of such arrogance, along with the ensuing disrespect that follows being “an inevitability”, is a good place to begin. Why such an efficacious “Way” should lend itself to the inevitable history that followed is indeed one of the questions you and I should not fear to confront in the anticipation of an answer, even if we don’t like the answer that emerges.

mike: I believe that a world view that necessitates competition is the source of disrespect. This view is not a result of one believing that their way of being is better, but a result of believing that resources are limited and if we are to dole them out they must be doled first to the "better" way.

rw: I’m at a loss as to what resources you’re referring to here. Certainly there are more peaceful means to the acquisition of natural resources, but human resources are another matter altogether…so perhaps there is something here to be considered. The acquisition of human resources, short of enslavement, require a certain degree of “convincing” which brings us to the various methodologies incorporated in this “convincing process”. But I’m not so sure the phenomenon of bloodletting stems from this competition. The Muslims, for instance, were very tolerant of other religions for centuries after their conquests, (which were made in the name of Islam), and Christians also give lip service to toleration and even acceptance of religious views other than their own. The OT Jews had their moments as well. There seems to be a pattern among these religions when viewed historically. They appear to begin peaceful enough, then escalate into periods of violence, (perhaps in self defense or to establish their domains…something we also need to consider)…then they appear to settle into a mode of tolerance, and then they appear to begin the whole process over again. Perhaps the tolerance is a sort of resting until the next advance. A serious inquiry into these periods or, as you called them, dispensations, may help us establish patterns of behavior from which we might be able to extract causative agents for further study, identification and classification.

Let’s drop a flag here for future reference. I suspect that the “convincing process” itself incorporates some built in mechanisms that facilitate manipulation…even encourage it, that allows competition to reach a crescendo of bloodletting. I don’t think the competition is a direct competition for more converts as much as a competition for control of more real estate from which these converts can be mined. In every confrontation somebody is the aggressor and somebody is the defender. I would suggest that once a competition reaches this level it has become as much political as it is religious. So we must consider how much “manipulation” is going on behind the scenes prior to the initial act of war and what the manipulators affiliation with religion or politics actually is. But remember, we’re undertaking a consideration of the manipulative factors inherent in religion, so it isn’t profitable to our undertaking to focus on politics entirely. In the aggressor/defensive scenario that unfolds we will always find a symbiosis of these institutions facilitating war and bloodletting. In some cases it’s a religious-political unfolding. In other cases it’s a political-religious undertaking. My aim here is to expose the manipulative factors inherent in religion, isolate them and perhaps prepare a summary for perusal by religious clergy/laity as an equipping/educating mechanism to hinder the facilitation of future such bloodletting. If the political machinery can find no leverage of manipulation among the religious it is forced to go it alone on its own merits. And, conversely, if the religious machinery has aspirations of conquest, it may find this more difficult to accomplish from an informed laity. So you can see the enormous future potential in such an undertaking.

Mike: Religion is not the source of conflict, but a belief in limited resources is. Religionists who hold this belief will compete against religions that they view as less worthy. But this competition is not exlusively the domain of religion. Wherever such belief is found there will be competition (e.g. my earlier example of science departments competing for funding). This view is found in my profession as well as among my fellow religionists. As an example, a friend in the developmental area recently complained that her boyfriend, who works upstairs doing cognitive science, commented that developmental psychology is less scientific then his chosen area of emphasis. For him, measuring reaction time in college students is more objective then looking for patterns of behavior in infants. At its root, I believe, this compulsive need to validate one's profession stems from a fear of losing resources. Which stems from a belief that resources are limited.

rw: Yes, we can admit that competition is a possible source of bloodletting. I cannot, however, excuse religion as a possible source of competition. Nor can we allow ourselves to look for reasons to do so. While it may be true that the behind-the-scenes manipulation is initiated by individuals with unscrupulous aims, it is impossible, once the process begins, to separate and isolate these religionists from the religion. We must hold all clergy suspect and responsible until the culprits can be isolated. It is the responsibility of the clergy to expose those factions within their ranks that are promulgating such measures. That is one of the factors that has brought the Catholic Diocese under such a cloud from these emerging cases of child molestation…their attempt to protect and cover-up the guilty. My aim is to head such endeavors off at the pass…before they reach the level of competition that facilitates aggression. “Equipping the saints” so to speak in order to prevent future manipulation of their sincere beliefs.

mike: Not subscribing to a view of random evolution makes it difficult for me to adopt this metaphor. I rather think that an original source (or an originating system) contains infinite components. Each component specializes in some way that is ecological for the whole system. Specialization would be the word I would use in place of mutation. In psychological statistics we sometimes use factor analysis to find commonalities among commonalities, often until we find a "latent" variable, or a general factor (in intelligence theory this is called "G"). In the realm of religion, True Religion would be analogous to this "G" or general factor. It is hypothetically possible to get a view of "G" from some type of factor analysis, but an underlying assumption is that you have all of the manifest variables or components of a system that exist available to you in your study. However, competition within components of a system may result in the extinction of some specific manifestations or components of the general factor. Let me use a more specific analogy. My body is a system of interconnected systems or components. Overemphasis on one specialized system to the exlusion of others may result in some type of extinction of some subset of my being. If my tonsils or appendix falls off as a result, I may still function as a "mutant" or rather a system with some overspecialized parts. If my head falls off, of course, I am dead--and really begin to stink. Much of religion today (as well as other human endeavors) is analogous to fingers and toes, arms and legs, appendixes and tonsils, headless bodies and bodiless heads running here and there imagining that they are in competition with each other for resources. All saying "I have no need of thee" to the others.

So rather than being a mutation, I aspire to be a representative of a wholistic system. Now while on the surface it may apear that I am also saying "my way is best." If I truly understand and subscribe to a wholistic, systemic view I can never say "therefore I have no need of thee." My world view may be more adaptive because it is more general, but because it is more general it necessitates acceptance of all specific components of the whole--as well as a recognition that I do in fact have "need of thee." Now if all of the parts of the system were available (running around trying to be independent) I might use something analogous to factor analysis to put them all together, find all of their similarities, until the body is reconstructed. The problem is that once parts of a system become overspecialized and reject other parts they begin to die--to become extinct. Gradually over time we are left with a collection of parts that will never, no matter how they are assembled, resemble the original whole. The only way to get back to the whole truth is to start over with a new system. In religion this restoration of the whole truth is accomplished through what has been called "dispensations" of the fullness of the gospel. At each historical dispensation (Adam, Abraham, Noah, Christ, etc.), however, there has been a near immediate entropy set in with parts of the system warring against their own members. The system is dissolved, and the separate parts begin to die off. This happened even after the time of Christ. In fact, Paul prophecied that before Christ's second coming there would be a "falling away" first. This is what I believe to be a more accurate representation of the history of man (as opposed to random mutation).

rw: Okay, that particular term was only used to convey the idea…and since you appear to have grasped the idea…it isn’t necessary to associate your position with that specific term if it offends. You can put any label on it you like. I am not so enamored with that specific term as to argue the point. The bigger issue looms, as Marx would say, “a specter” over the whole of religion. We are breaking new ground here Mike so we get to assign the terms :^D.

mike: My belief is that a new dispensation has begun.

rw: Then it aught to be given a chance to flourish ere the manipulators see the value and move in like wolves in sheep’s clothing…yes? You admit these are relevant issues and I hold they are crucial issues that seem not to be considered so. If this new dispensation is to become a mature “Way” perhaps your participation may help protect it from a crib death at the outset.

Mike: At a new dispensation you have a prototypical whole "body" again, you now know where all of the components should go, and reintegration of surviving systems becomes possible. But to make this reintegration possible, and to avoid another disintegration we must indeed go to the root--I believe this root of disintegration is a false belief in limited resources.

rw: And I disagree. I think limited resources is just the tip of the ice burg. The prototypical “body” does not exist in a vacuum. It is surrounded by other bodies…political and economic and philosophical bodies that would invade and permeate it with invisible, sleeper cells of manipulative levers that could and would be used at a time convenient to those who use such advantages. An “equipped” clergy/laity would be better prepared against such future attempts at manipulation and everyone benefits. Paul battled with this very issue during his ministry and perhaps did not realize that the mechanisms were inherent in his message. Thus his writings are sprinkled with sharp rebukes and warnings.

rw: I have no idea what specific, if any, religion you adhere to, if you observe holy days or express your spirituality in any religious rites or rituals...these things are incidental to our discussion.

mike: Not entirely incidental since my views of spirituality stem from my religious training. My religion is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints--about which you have probably heard something--and some of which may even have been accurate.

rw: Okay, that may be helpful and I’ll keep it in mind, but the task in hand must be bigger than any church, denomination or religious persuasion. It must cover all of religianity and address the inherent manipulative mechanisms in all religions.

rw: In the bible Jesus declares that he came not to bring peace, but a sword, (and please understand I have wrestled with that scripture from every imaginable position so don't waste your time trying to explain it).

mike: Might I not indulge in a brief attempt? You should know by now that I find it difficult to resist a challenge. Matthew chapter 10 (wherein is found the verse you quoted) contains instructions and warnings given from Christ to his apostles. After giving instructions he warns them: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Imagine that scenario. You have a group of wolves lounging together wondering what to do with themselves and along come a bunch of sheep. The sheep as we know are harmless, and wise, but the wolves are neither. Now wouldn't this be analogous to sending a "sword?" You know by sending the sheep that there is going to be some violence done. But the sheep won't be doing it, the wolves will. Why, you may ask send sheep into such perilous circumstances? To uncover who are the real sheep and who are the real wolves. Because, whereas flocks of sheep sometimes may have a wolf in sheep's clothing, packs of wolves may also have an occasional sheep in wolf's clothing: The proverbial "lost sheep." The apostles were sent to find the lost sheep that were mingling with wolves. Now wolves don't like it much when you reduce their numbers by drawing out the sheep (sheep with identity crises). Wolves hunt in packs and with fewer of them (minus those who converted to sheepdom) they will be less able to compete for the resources that they imagine to be limited. Thus, when they see any attempt at drawing from their numbers, they show their teeth, or sword whatever the case may be.

rw: Thank you Mike for accentuation my point. I knew you wouldn’t be able to resist the opportunity, which is why I chose that specific text. You have just astutely demonstrated how simple it is to take a scripture and make it speak an Evangelical message of peace. Now, when that message fails, then the same text can be turned into an Evangelical message of bloodletting. And none of what you say has changed history. History teaches us another lesson. According to history competition for limited resources is not the prime mover in the reinterpretation of scripture. History teaches us that “preservation” of those resources religion has already acquired is the prime motive for the manipulation. Once this preservation mode set in any sheep that set out to infiltrate were quickly gobbled up in the ensuing malay of bloodletting as their converts found themselves surrounded by invading armies or found themselves members of an invading army. What are the causative factors that drag the sheep and the wolves across the expanse of time in a never ending struggle for dominance of man’s minds and bodies? Why are men depicted as sheep and wolves? That is the question to be resolved here. I only offered this scripture as one example of the “inherent” factors in the message itself. Your attempt to justify it with one interpretation only accents how easy it is to translate one message into another. Apparently, no one has gotten the message Mike. The Muslims have numerous scriptures in the Koran that are just as easily twisted but they exist in need of minds ripe for the wrenching. The very idea of being a Muslim or brother or believer carries great potential for psychological dismemberment from the rest of the world and has resulted in the literal dismemberment of a large body of the rest of the world. This absolutely has to stop!

rw: Is there a way to beat this sword into a ploughshare?

mike: Perhaps finding the sheep behind the wolf's hide. But as long as there are those who insist on being wolves, on hunting in packs because they fear the loss of resources, there will be swords. Alas, if only we could remember that the sun shines on all of us--and there is plenty to go around. When Christ was about to die he broke bread with his disciples and told them to do this again in remembrance of him. He wanted them to re-member: Or to become members again of a whole. To be one with him and his father. This was the gospel he preached. That there should be a bringing back together of parts. But he knew that there would be some who resisted it--even with the sword--believing that they were competing entities rather than systemic components of a whole.

rw: But the message Mike…it’s not just a message that pits one religion against another. It’s a message that pits its constituency against all comers…and if no one comes…it sends its constituency out to solicit them and prove itself the better “Way”. Why?

rw: I see no other way but to work with my fellow man who, for whatever reason, chooses to believe and accept spirituality as his means of adding quality to his life.

mike: Then you are doing exactly what must be done. You are re-membering.

rw: How can one forget? And let’s not forget the eschatology inherent in all religions, the prophetic message of a changing of the guard in favor of that specific religion. Oh my, how fraught with opportunity this presents us for manipulation. A new heaven and a new earth. What did you call it? A new dispensation? And what are we dispensing with? What is being dispensated in its place? How is this to unfold? Is it a peaceful dispensation or is bloodletting likely to be the final arbiter? Will we see another classic example of “Right makes might”? Be careful how you answer.

Spenser

The key word here bud is "sometimes." Not everyone knows in there conscience that murder is wrong. That maybe a more widespread case in modern society where not wanting to be murdered yourself keeps you from murdering others (and the same goes for others), hence, dropping the murder rate in society, hence dropping your chances of being murdered yourself. Very much a survival behavior in a very populated society. It outweighs the survival advantage of eliminating competition.

However, in hunter gatherer societies or early food producing societies, eliminating your competition was a larger survival advantage (obviously not amongst your own tribe because your numbers work to your advantage). Examples of this were the complete replacement of Peloponnesian peoples with Austro Asian peoples in many islands in the South Pacific. Or white Europeans slaughtering peoples of the new world in order to begin colonization. How immoral do you really think cannibals were of tiny islands that were in desperate need of protein in their diets?

You are fooling yourself to suggest that morality is a universal gut feeling.

I don't see how either homosexuality or heterosexuality are moral or immoral. Jobar may have suggested that practices and ideas which allowed for more efficient banding together, in larger and therefore more powerful societies, are survival advantages, and therefore defined as moral. however doesn't say "ALL PRACTICES" as if none can be excluded. Heterosexuality is a default necessary function for survival of a species, without it we all cease to spread our genes. The fact that some stray, so what? Does it endanger the human species as a whole? Does it endanger the lives of other people in the society? No! Murder does, rape does, Etc.

rainbow walking

Ah Spencer...I apologize for having high-jacked your thread. Temporary insanity it was...I tell you...is that immoral?

NonContradiction

Well, that is one way to avoid answering my question. Simply treat heterosexuality and homosexuality as being equally amoral.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. For that reason, I believe that a strong case can be made that heterosexual behavior is moral behavior since it leads to preservation of the species. If preservation of the species is a good thing, then whatever means to achieve that end becomes moral. The same cannot be said for homosexuality so how can they be equal?

All of these questions that you are asking here are irrelevant. The question is if homosexuality is morally neutral and heterosexuality is moral, then why should society treat the two equally if they are not equal?

Mike

rw, you seem to suggest that animosity stems from something inherent in religion. I suggest that animosity stems from something that goes much deeper than religion or science or politics: A struggle between two ideologies, two views of man. One view suggests that your life means my death, your success my failure. The other view suggests that life begets life, and success begets success. As long as the first view exists there will be strife in politics, science and religion.

In addition, there are at least two kinds of war. Wars between camps who both hold the competitive view of humanity, and wars between camps who hold opposing views of humanity. There are obviously no wars between groups of people who both sincerely believe in cooperation as a general value and way of being for all of humanity--as an absolute morality. The second category of wars may be described as those who believe in cooperation defending their freedom and lives from those who would take their freedom because of a belief in competition as an absolute way of being. This type of war is what was described with the wolf/sheep metaphor. "Sheep" just want to live and let live, but given the prospects of losing their lives and/or liberty to those who feel compelled to take, these "sheep" must defend their rights or lose them.

The irony is that the "sheep" often by focusing on life and cooperation become wildly successful. Subsequently, those who hold the competitive view are drawn to attack these successful cooperators. They envy their success, they see their existence as a threat, and they often see plunder as a legitimate way to get on "top." Who to plunder but the successful? Who is more successful than those who cooperate? Thus, as long as there are those who view parasitic plunder as a legitimate way of being, there will be those would rather cooperate, but who must defend their liberties in order to gain the right to cooperate.

Converts are sought by those holding both views, but for different reasons. People who believe in competition as "the way" desire to gain strength for their conquering armies. People who view cooperation as the way believe that by aiding others in becoming successful, their own success will be enhanced. The more, the merrier. Cooperators view life as a big pot-luck dinner. I may only be able to contribute a salad, but if we all work together we will all have a feast. Competitors watching the feast grow envious, and rather than asking to participate, they try to wreck the feast and make off with the food. It really isn't that mysterious, the cause of war. It comes down to a simple philosophy. That of competition as a means for survival. This view was described so eloquently by old pastor Darwin--although it didn't originate with him. Cain played it out first, according to Judeo-Christians. But false science insists that this doctrine originates in our biology and is inevitable--deterministic--and if so, what right have we to resist? Religion points to Satan, rather than biology, as the originator of this false doctrine and true religion preaches that competition is NOT deterministic or inevitable, but that the doctrine of competition for survival is a lie. Only where religion fails does "religion" compete. Your argument is not simply with religion, but with a doctrine of competition. This doctrine stems from a belief in limited resources. And as you already have pointed to the possibility of finding other worlds (as have religionists), and other resources, to a potentially unlimited quantity, I assume you do not believe in limited resources. If this is true, you cannot truly believe in competition as a means for survival, but must in fact agree that cooperation is more efficacious.

In order to find such a transcendent solution as you seem to hope for, we must first recognize that the problems of war, violence, and compulsion go deeper than not only any one religion, but go deeper than "religion" (and science, and politics) in general. If we assume the problem stems alone from religion we will miss the mark. The reason is this: Man's institutions are not simply causes, but more accurately symptoms. Religious doctrine cannot be pointed to as a cause of discord, but only as a symptom of underlying discord--if, that is, such doctrine correlates at all (positively) with discord. Correlation is not causation.

We agree that doctrines can often be wrested both to peaceful or violent ends. The two notable exceptions are the doctrines of competition vs. cooperation. The former can never lead to peace, and the latter can never lead to war. How then can any other less absolute doctrine be pointed to as a cause? If I am wrong, name the more fundamental doctrines then these; the clearer, the less susceptible to interpretation and I will consider them. Don't point to the vagueness of lesser doctrines as a cause for violence. Their vagueness is but blank canvases on which to paint our underlying beliefs. We project our desires and beliefs onto such doctrinal canvases, but there are two doctrines that can never be misinterpreted: Competition/hate, and cooperation/love. A blank canvas is not a cause of the painting being made upon it, but simply a place upon which we may paint. "Religion" is but one of multiple canvases (science and politics are others). This is the reason that when asked which were the greatest commandments (doctrines), Christ replied that Love comes in both first and second place. Love of God with all our hearts; which corresponds with a love of neighbor as of self. If we will truly follow either commandment we will, we must, follow both. You cannot love the Father and hate the children, nor love the children and hate the Father. Adherence to these fundamental doctrines is how you will know true religion, and true spirituality, when you find it. Don't you see how the core of true religion, loving your neighbor as yourself, is incompatible with all the wars of false religion? It is a lack of religion, a failure of it, that leds to these "religious" wars--not religion's success. Religion's success would be peace on earth.

By the way, it is a proven fact that "service learning" in schools, the practical teaching of love for neighbors, increases grades, reduces delinquency, and improves self-esteem (the finding of self in service of others). Kids who spend time serving in their communities are more successful. Period. And true religion is to visit the fatherless and widows, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. If you would solve the problem of violence in the world, join me in preaching a gospel of cooperation, of love--and forget all of this finger pointing nonsense!

Spenser

Cross Examiner

Mr. Spenser

You say not wanting to be murdered yourself is the impetus for the internal aversion to committing murder; what about the times when murder is to your advantage, when you can likely get away with it and yet you refrain? There is an element of avoidance but ascribing the conscience to pure avoidance is naive. Murder is the unjustified/illegal killing of another human being, often with malice of forethought; gratuitously evil. In your argument; rationalizations abound (a remarkable human ability without limit). Momentarily setting your examples of justifiable homicide aside, is there ever justification for raping a child? No, yet it is done and universally repulsed by all save he (often) who commits the deed. Objective moral wrong. The conscious will always prick the first wrong, the second becomes easier; conditioning. Sociopath analysis laments how killing a man is easier the second time--he becomes accustomed to it. A lot can be said for conditioning, social and personal conditioning numbs the conscience. Do a wrong enough times and you'll not think much of it. For example, in many Asiatic cultures (e.g. Vietnamese) the notion of cheating, say, on an exam, is not inherently wrong. This would be an example of cultural conditioning reducing the "sting" of cheating upon the conscience of an individual. Only the most virulent environments can numb the sting of the conscience of the individual who rapes a little child. Is there ever a time when raping a child is advantageous? Similarly, murder is by definition without justification. It is gratuitous evil. It is universally wrong in the minds of all who have not already taken that path. Those who have already embarked will justify it or have even become immune to it.

Quite immoral, yet conditioned. Take the (former) cannibals of Irian Jaya; they cannibalized men of opposing factions in order to gain their essence, to the increase of personal power, not for protein. The tribes justified this behavior with an appeal to one's self-improvement, mixed in a bit of animist spirituality, accepted over the centuries...societal conditioning removed the prick of conscience. Christian missionaries came, lived among them, died among them, dressed as they did and adopted non-contradictory practices to be accepted by them. They built hospitals, shelters, schools and churches. They preached the light of the gospel to a culture of death. Crime decreased. Education increased. Lifespan increased. Life more abundant, as Jesus promised, was the result. There is no justification of evil if God is and Jesus is God. If neither are, then have at it, you must have it and you will find it, or else create it. It is an imperative of the position.