Review and Commentary of Aaron D. Taylor's Alone with a Jihadist

(By Guest Blogger - Michel Weatherall)

I had assumed this book to be a debate between the author – an evangelical Christian – and Khalid, a Muslim Jihadist with a hate-on for America and in general, Western ways. If, like me, you were hoping for a near line-for-line reading of this pair's actual conversation – like me – you will be disappointed, as Khalid is almost mentioned by name only. However, when Aaron D. Taylor describes himself as a charismatic-raised, Bible-belt evangelical, I was expecting the worst. I was quite surprised by what he had to say. Although we never hear the finer details of this conversation, we can see throughout the rest of the book that the author was genuinely effected. So, if the book isn't a 'play-by-play' commentary of Aaron and Khalid's debate, what is this book about? I think the author begins by attempting to answer a sobering question Khalid challenged he with:

”Jesus didn't leave the world with a comprehensive social system, economic system, political system, or any other kind of system to regulate society...How would you implement the Bible from a governmental point of view?” pg. 18

To which Taylor concludes,

”The Bible can't be implemented from a governmental perspective!” pg. 20

And I think this is the gist of the entire book. He further explores this issue by looking at the only divinely-ordained earthly government, or theocracy, we know of in the bible.

”...theocracy was tried once and it turned out to be a big fat failure. If we read the Bible as a narrative, then we have to conclude that theocracy doesn't work. The very things that theocracy was supposed to prevent actually increased under theocratic rule... Most human beings who are forced to conform to a strict set of laws will rebel every chance they can get.” pg. 24

”God started the theocracy experiment with Moses... we have to conclude that even God ordained theocracies are unable to establish the Kingdom of God on earth.” pg. 184-185

I was surprised to see that Aaron D. Taylor found himself seeing issues that I myself has stumbled across. A Nationalistic Moses. Too many times I have brought up the issue that the 'ways' and laws, and even how God is between the Old and New Testaments are different. And so many times Christians have blatantly denied it or attempted to 'educate' me in why I just couldn't see how they were all really the same. Not Aaron.

”Jesus was very comfortable with discarding old ways, even if those ways seemed right at one time. Jesus taught that old wineskins should be discarded, not simply patched up (Luke 5:36-39).”, pg. 90

”When it comes to God's self-revelation to human beings, clearly there's a then and there's a now.” pg. 91

But I couldn't help but notice his open-mindedness. Again, quite a surprising and refreshing trait for a Christian Fundamentalist. He speaks of Chomsky and Thoreau and Anarchism and specifically how Chomsky and Thoreau had defined it. (”Can there not be a government in which majorities do not decide right and wrong – but conscious?... Must the citizen even for the moment... resign his conscience to a legislator?” pg. 180). Government by (individual) conscience rather than institutional imposed law (via fear of punishment). I have seen this same point of view, but I had been introduced to it by Lao Tzu in Taoism.

What most impressed me about ”Alone with a Jihadist” and Aaron D. Taylor was his open-mindedness, especially for a Christian Fundamentalist. His willingness to seek out and accept the truth where the truth speaks loudest; from his willingness to actually listen to the grievances of a Muslim Jihadist, to words of wisdom from a Roman Catholic Pope (pg. 34), to the conscious-driven government of anarchism (Taoism?), to even acknowledging what the Hebrews under Moses and Joshua intended to do to the indigenous Canaanites was nothing less than genocide.

”I take Hebrews 8:13 at face value when it says the Old Covenant is “obsolete”, so that rules out every argument based from Mount Sinai on that says Israel is supposed to wipe out the Canaanites (Never mind the fact that Christians who use this argument balk at the term ethnic cleansing to describe what's going on today while appealing to Old Testament texts that advocate genocide to justify their position).” pg. 153

In every book review that I write, I always enjoy attempting to identify its potential target audience, and it is for this reason I don't want to say that Aaron D. Taylor seems to have the insight and wisdom of a pluralist or a syncritist too loudly. I believe this book has an audience within the American Evangelical; Bible-belt Christians. If not, then it is a book they should most definitely take seriously. If fundamentalism itself is allowed to run its course; if the American-Evangelical and Islam continue its escalating conflict, either fundamentalist position will only dig their heels in deeper and deeper. The only outcome in this scenario is disastrous for us all! A voice like Aaron's gives me hope that there is another option to fundamentalism.

”I believe that for too long the word “evangelical” has been synonymous with hyper-nationalism. We've turned the Lord Jesus Christ, Savior of the world, into a tribal deity who fights for the U.S. Flag. We've made God into our image and transformed Jesus into the defender of American values.” pg. 56

A hyper-national American tribal-deity. Now that's a title that caught my attention, and it is at this point that he begins to take a closer look at Religiosity in more detail.

”Religion creates cultures, cultures reinforce tribal and national identities, tribal and national identities lead to competition for resources and prejudice against other human beings, and competition and prejudice lead to violent conflict. In short, religion leads to war.” pg. 166-167

”Religion provides a means by which human beings can dehumanize others with the approval of their conscience.” pg. 167

”Religion and nationalism don't mix.” pg. 168

He systematically identifies the traits of tribalism; American Religious Nationalism. American Christian Zionism; masked hatred and racism and the illusion of a Just War, as the derogatory plagues that they are. Although he never uses the word, what his describes are all byproducts of the Disease of Religiosity.

 He compares the casualties of the invasion of Iraq to that of 9/11

”If a similar death toll were to occur in the United States, more than 295,000 lives would have been lost – about a hundred times the number of people killed on 9/11” pg. 111

Comparative civilian casualties were 100 times worst, yet somehow this form of violence is deemed acceptable because of the defense of freedom and democracy. He identifies that violent revolution are not a necessity for freedom and democracy as too many Americans believe.

Just because the U.S.A. achieved independence through violent revolution doesn't mean they must have.

”Canada and Australia are highly successful first world democracies and neither of them achieved their national sovereignty through violent revolution... Canada and Australia received their freedom gradually.” pg, 79

~

”All nations advance their self-interests by the power of the sword. No matter how much one nation claims to be more righteous, more holy, than all the other nations, Kingdom of God citizens know better.... A careful study of the New Testament reveals there are two types of kingdoms available to mankind – and only two. The Kingdom of God always looks like Jesus and operates from the basis of power through redemptive love and the kingdoms of this world operate from the basis of power-through-the-sword. The Kingdom of God always comes under the people to serve them. The kingdoms of this world would always rule over people to subdue them.” pg. 40

The Point? No nation is a Christian nation. No nation has Jesus' 'vote' or backing. No nation represents The Kingdom of God and that includes America.

But wouldn't Democracy be the exception? A significant portion of the Muslim world sees it differently.

”...summarized in three short sentences: Christianity leads to democracy. Democracy is man-made law. Man-made law lead to chaos. Whether we like it or not, this is an argument that millions of Muslims around the world, even the less radical ones find compelling. For them, words like “freedom” and “democracy” mean pornography and partial birth abortion. Democracy is convicted murderers and child molesters serving a few years in prison and then being set free to roam the streets again. Freedom means gambling, miniskirts, and legalized drugs. In short, democracy is man-made law, which is a mockery, something that's totally flexible, open to the whims and interpretations of the society.” pg. 53-54

He listens to the flaws and errors that are inherent within democracy without turning on it. If we can see the errors of our ways, at least we stand the chance of ejecting or correcting the bad while maintaining the good.

”We tend not to listen to people who support terrorists, but I think that may be our most profound weakness. Because if you actually sit down and listen to them... you will hear an anger and frustration with America and the Western world that isn't emerging from a vacuum.” pg. 169

This made me think of Osama Bin Laden. When America put him in power to combat the Russians he was a Freedom Fighter. When he challenged and turned on those American powers; when he ceased being of use, he became a Terrorist.

One question that continues to echo in my conscious is whether the fictional character V from  'V is for Vendetta' was a freedom fighter or a terrorist. Or maybe they are the same thing from two different points of view. A Frankenstein's Monster.

Near the end of the book he even gives credit to our critics, acknowledging that their anger and frustration do not come out of a vacuum. Although this does not accept the actions taken by some extremists, it does at least concede that our past actions (and inactions) have played some degree of influence. We of the Western World are not saints and possibly, just maybe, we've had a hand in creating Frankenstein's Monster. This is the only road to love, compassion and peace that I know of.

 I will finish this commentary or review with a simple, but sobering line from this book; one that I think is pointedly aimed at many Americans.

”Jesus has lots of fans, but very few followers.” pg. 164

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network  I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255.

Life Immortal?

For those of you who know me well enough, you'll know that a great deal of my worldview, my 'theology', my spirituality if you will, hinges on the Genesis story up 'til what is commonly accepted as the fall of man. (Although my take on it is somewhat different). But here's a somewhat scary interpretation on it. Quite a different one I should think.

"The traditional, orthodox Christian view was that man was created perfect, innocent, foolish and happy, living naked in the Garden of Even. Then came knowledge and wisdom and the Fall of Man, to which the sufferings of man are due, notably (1) work by the sweat of one's brow for man, and (2) the pangs of labor for women. In contrast with man's original innocence and perfection, a new element was introduced to explain his present imperfection, and that is of course the Devil, working chiefly through the body, while his higher nature works through the soul. When the "soul" was invented in the history of Christian theology I am not aware, but this "soul" became a something rather than a function, an entity rather than a condition, and it sharply separated man from the animals, which have no soul worth saving. Here the logic halts, for the origin of the Devil had to be explained, and when the medieval theologians proceeded with their usual scholastic logic to deal with the problem, they got into a quandary. They could not have very well admitted that the Devil, who as Not-God, came from God himself, nor could they quite agree that in the original universe, the Devil, a Not-God, was co-eternal with God. So in desperation they agreed that the Devil must have been a fallen angel, which rather begs the question of the origin of evil (for there still must have been another Devil to tempt this fallen angel), and which is therefore unsatisfactory, but they had to leave it at that. Nevertheless from all this followed the curious dichotomy of the spirit and the flesh, a mythical conception which is still quite prevalent and powerful today in affecting our philosophy of life and happiness.

"Then came the Redemption, still borrowing from the current conception of the sacrificial lamb, which went still farther back to the idea of a God who desired the smell of roast meat and could not forgive for nothing. From this Redemption, at one stroke a means was found by which all sins could be forgiven, and a way was found for perfection again. The most curious aspect of Christian thought is the idea of perfection. As this happened during the decay of the ancient worlds, a tendency grew up to emphasize the afterlife, and the question of salvation supplanted the question of happiness or simple living itself. The notion was how to get away from this world alive, a world which was apparently sinking into corruption and chaos and doomed. Hence the overwhelming importance attached to immortality. This represents a contradiction of the original Genesis story that God did not want man to live forever. This Genesis story of the reason why Adam and Eve were driven out of Eden was not that they had tasted of the Tree of Knowledge, as it popularly conceived, but the fear lest they should disobey a second time and eat of the Tree of Life and live forever.""Lin Yutang, "The Importance of Living", pg. 15-16.

God did not want man to live forever. The Heaven of the afterlife? Immortality?
 And what if God has never intended for Man to live forever... in any way or form; That there is no immortality in the afterlife - either Heaven or Hell. That man's soul is not innately immortal... and never will be.

 Would Christians still be 'good' and 'do the right thing' if there were no reward, no immortality of the afterlife, no Heaven - no carrot.
What would you do?

 And if there was no goal at the end of the race, would we still race? Wouldn't that make us spiritual hedonists? I like Lin Yutang's take on the Garden of Eden story because it answers questions that the more traditionally accepted version doesn't and can't answer.

The Dharma Entanglement: The Edenic Birdcage

Pedro

 Pedro saw an inherent problem with the imagery of God.

 Pedro is a marionette, a string puppet. Everything and anything Pedro did was completely and absolutely according to the will of God.

 On the issues of sticks and carrots - Pedro thought - I am being rewarded or punished according to actions I am not completely in control of or even guilty of. How can this be a loving God?

 Pedro realized – that from a certain point of view – he was enslaved to this deity, regardless of whether he chose to “surrender” to this God or not. What attached him to God; the strings that controlled and manipulated him, put bleeding wounds that could never heal. Pedro's ambitions were to somehow regain control – to take possession of the puppeteer's central rod & control bar; to be in control of himself, and potentially from that position, choose to follow or not follow this deity; to legitimately make the choice to 'surrender' or not.

 The story ends sadly for poor Pedro. For once he does finally gain possession of his central rod & control bar, he discovers that he completely and totally looses control. He can never find himself in a position to legitimately make that choice to follow this deity or not. That he was never anything more than a slave.

 ...poor Pedro.

 ~

I realize this is only one of many potential perspectives. But there is an issue of the tension between Love and Control. And I for one do not believe these two things are compatible.


Coraline 

A great example of this is the story (novel and movie) of Coraline. It is The Other Mother, (or the Beldam), and her alternative and near identical 'Other World'. On initial look everything is better. Everything is catered to Coraline because the Other Mother loves her.

But as the story unfolds we discover that that nagging uneasiness we've felt from the very beginning may very well have been justified. The Other Mother is the true power and force behind this entire other world. God-like in her power with a tiny exception; she cannot create, but only copy, twist, and manipulate.

But why? She just wants someone to love. There's a price for her love and adornment. The sacrifice of one's freedom. You must stay in her fabricated world forever. In essence, becoming her slave. (And as the story advances, we discover that it becomes worse than this for this fake God – thisDemiurge – becomes easily bored of her newly acquired objects of love and affection, only to discard and abandon them, essentially, to death). (On a side note, it is also interesting that another name for the Gnostic's Demurge is Ialdabaoth, or Yaldabaoth, an imperfect god or a blind god. What's further interesting is that Coraline's Other Mother has artificial eyes - buttons! - sewn on, for without them she is blind).

Coraline reminds me so much of a certain point of view of Gnosticism that I am somewhat surprised nobody has made the comparison before.

If we reread Genesis, but from a certain Gnostic perspective, we can clearly see this exact same pattern. The source material (the book of Genesis) itself is not altered, but its interpretation is. In this perspective it is the symbols and imagery that are switched.


The Edenic Birdcage

”The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it”. Genesis 2:15 (NIV)

The Edenic God created Adam in a world (the Garden of Eden) without worry, experience (or the potential of growth). Could the Garden of Eden have been intended as a birdcage or a prison for Adam?

”The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”” Genesis 2:18 (NIV)

This Edenic God realized Adam’s thirst for something more. He then realized that to work the Garden of Eden and take care of it was not enough to fulfill Adam’s emptiness. The Edenic God acknowledges that Adam is missing something and states that it is not good for the man to be alone. He then declares that he will“make a helper suitable for him.” God then creates all of the animals and gives Adam the task of naming them all. But yet this Edenic God still fails in making a helper suitable for him.

”Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field”. Genesis 2:19-20a (NLV)

Could this have been an attempt for the Edenic God to “make a helper suitable for him”? God is again attempting to fill this emptiness that plagued Adam.

”But for Adam no suitable helper was found”. Genesis 2:20b (NLV)

This very much concerns me. An omnipotent being would absolutely know what this emptiness within Adam was and would not (ever) need to guess at it. It would seem that this Edenic God wanted himself to be Adam’s fulfillment. He wanted Adam to be content with him alone, yet he wasn’t. So why wasn’t Adam? I believe that what Adam’s thirst was for freedom. If for the sake of argument we assume the Edenic God is keeping Adam as a pet (a being to worship him, or being forced into worshiping him) within the “artificially” created paradise-world Eden, the last thing this God would give Adam would be freedom:

”So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs [or took part of the man’s side] and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib [or part] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said,“This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman’, for she was taken out of man.”” Genesis 2:21-23 (NLV)

This is interesting considering that in Genesis 1:27 it says

”So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them”. Genesis 1:27 (NLV), bold text.

…yet in Genesis 2:21-23 (some time after Genesis 1:27) Eve is “created” out of Adam. Genesis 1:27 (the creation of Adam) states that he was created male and female. Is Genesis 1:27 suggesting that Adam was originally a hermaphrodite, physically having both male and female organs? I wouldn’t think so. The reference in Genesis 1:27 to creating man (Adam) both male and female, I believe is referring not to physical gender, but to internal facets.

Call it the mind and body, the soul and spirit, the intellect and instinct, the ego and the psyche, it matters little what exactly you call it. The fact is that originally man (Adam) was made whole and complete. It was only in Genesis 2:21-23 that this whole and complete man (Adam) was divided or separated. It would seem that Adam was originally created whole, yet within the Garden of Eden, unsatisfied. If this is the case then it follows that in Genesis 2:21-22 Eve was not created but removed from Adam. This Edenic God attempted to make Adam into something less than he was created as. Possibly something that would be content within this Edenic Birdcage. He attempts to make Adam unwhole. The original, whole and complete Adam (man) had to be made unwhole and divided because this Edenic God could only have obedience and worship in part.

The Edenic God attempted to force Adam (mankind) into servitude (slavery?)


 The Holy Serpent 

It is only within the next three verses that the serpent makes its first appearance.

“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made”. Genesis 3:1a (KJV) “Now the serpent was the shrewdest of all the creatures the Lord God had made”. Genesis 3:1 (NLT) “Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made”. Genesis 3:1a (NIV)

It says that the serpent is subtil (subtle), crafty, or shrewd.

”Subtle: 1) evasive or mysterious; hard to grasp (subtle charm; a subtle distinction). 2) (of scent, colour, etc.) faint, delicate, elusive (subtle perfume). 3a) capable of making fine distinctions; perceptive; acute (subtle intellect; subtle senses). b) ingenious; elaborate; clever (a subtle device). 4) archaic crafty, cunning.” The Oxford English Reference Dictionary, Second Edition, 2001, pg. 1440

”Crafty: cunning, artful, wily”. The Oxford English Reference Dictionary, Second Edition, 2001, pg. 332

”Shrewd: 1) showing astute powers of judgment; clever and judicious (a shrewd observer; made a shrewd guess), 2) archaic a) (of pain, cold, etc.) sharp, biting. b) (of a blow, thrust, etc.) severe, hard. c) mischievous; malicious”. The Oxford English Reference Dictionary, Second Edition, 2001, pg. 1343

It is only in the New Living Translation, which a word even comes close to suggesting evil is used. It does not say that the serpent is evil, nor does it say that it is in possession of Satan.

In this interpretation, the Edenic God is not one in the same as the commonly and traditionally understood monotheistic God. In this interpretation it is the Holy Spirit that filled the serpent and reaches out to help and to save humanity. To “bring us into the light”. The message the serpent gives Eve is the path out of the Garden of Eden (the birdcage). But is there any evidence to support this theory? Does the bible show that knowledge is good rather than evil? (Isaiah 11:2 states that knowledge (Hebrew, da'ath) is a gift of the Holy Spirit).

In Proverbs 8:10 Solomon says “Choose my instruction instead of silver, knowledge rather than choice gold”. And in Proverbs 8:12 Solomon is quoting “Wisdom”, the first of God’s works, “I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence; I possess knowledge and discretion”. Both use the word “knowledge”, or da’ath in the original Hebrew, which is the same word used in Genesis 2:9, “And the Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground – trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil”.

It is after both Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that the Edenic God becomes concerned about the tree of life.

”And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever”. Genesis 3:22 (NIV)

The Edenic God then proceeds to banish Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, I believe, out of fear of them discovering the tree of life.

”So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken”. Genesis 3:23 (NIV)

It is interesting that Adam was banished to “work the ground” yet earlier, in Genesis 2:15 the Lord God had put Adam in the Garden of Eden to “work it and take care of it.” There seems to be little difference. In Genesis 3:22 there is the first reference in the Bible to having (or the possibility of attaining) eternal life.

”Then the Lord God said, “The people have become as we are, knowing everything, both good and evil. What if they eat the fruit of the tree of life? Then they will live forever!” Genesis 3:22 (NLT)

This verse occurs after Adam and Eve had eaten the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I find it a very interesting verse. It tells us some things: First of all, since the question is asked, “What if they eat the fruit of the tree of life?” and then answered, “Then they will live forever!” Tells us that Adam and Eve were not originally immortal, and that since this Edenic God, made them with death, then he also ruled over death, or ruled them with death. They had not yet eaten the fruit of the tree of life!

”Because God’s children are human beings – made of flesh and blood – Jesus also became flesh and blood by being born in human form. For only as a human being could he die, and only by dying could he break the power of the Devil, who had the power of death. Only in this way could he deliver those who have lived all their lives as slaves to the fear of dying”. Hebrews 2:14-15 (NLT)

“…lived all their lives as slaves...” Doesn’t this line say a lot?

Secondly, why does the Edenic God seem so concerned or fearful? Why does the Edenic God not want mankind to partake of the fruit of the tree of life? It is in the very next verse (Genesis 3:23) in which God banishes them from the Garden of Eden.

And finally and most importantly, exactly what is the tree of life? And why does this Edenic God not want Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of it? What is the fruit of the tree of life? I believe that the Tree of Life is nothing short than the true God – a God unbounded by religion.


Towards the Mu Portal 

The heretical Rabbi, Yeshua of Nazareth, spoke of a strange and elusive concept he called The Kingdom of God. something that was yet to come, yet strangely present in the Here and Now; within ourselves. An unrealized potential.

The potential is that Yeshua is the Fruit of the Tree of Life (and must be consumed...) not so much for Salvation, but for enlightenment. Not so much the roll of Redeemer but as Revealer.

Yeshua was an exemplar; he was a Revealer rather than a Redeemer. It is religion, religiosity itself that kept us ignorant, captive, and slaves. Let's add that this interpretation (either interpretation) are not literal history. I don't believe either historically happened. They are myths (and myths are not lies or fiction), but myths with meanings. The truth is not in the fact of whether these events really happened or not. I think many people fail miserably to see and recognize that it doesn't have to be literal history to be true.

If Yeshua, and especially his teachings on this Kingdom of God, is the fruit of the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:22) then it is only through knowledge and wisdom that we're to be freed of our bondage to religiosity. What I believe Yeshua truly taught wasn't the advent of new religion (Christianity), but a heightened awareness - a sort of freedom and enlightenment, rather than a salvation. Yeshua's Kingdom of God wasn't a new religion, but the end of all religion. The escape hatch from this Edenic Birdcage; emancipation from the Entrapment of Religiosity.

The Garden of Eden is only a deceptive paradise, little more than a birdcage, in which Adam & Eve are unknowingly imprisoned. Objects of this deity's love and affection (and a source of worship) but only under certain conditions. Mankind is not content and somehow innately knows it; is missing something and reaching for it. This Edenic God (desperately) attempts to fulfill this longing and repeatedly fails.

Enters the Holy Spirit as the serpent, giving directions to their escape from this delusional cage of Paradise. Acting of behalf of something above and beyond the Edenic God.

he Mexican marionette Pedro made a simple mistake. What he thought was God was really little more than his religiosity. He was trapped with no way out. The thing he replied upon to save him was the very thing that condemned him. He would never discover the exit of his Edenic Birdcage.

Coraline, with the help of a Black Cat who was not subjective to the Other Mother's deceptions (?... the Serpent?, The Holy Spirit? Sophia?) saw through the Beldam's deception and lies and aided in Coraline's escape from her Edenic Birdcage.

And Adam & Eve (mankind) became enlightened by the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, gaining the potential of Tree of Life.

I think this may very well be the defining difference between the Religious and the Spiritual. The stories of Pedro and of Coraline's Other Mother, and the Great Escape from the Prison of Eden, are all lessons from parting ways from the disease or plague of religiosity. These are slave masters.

What is important is the meanings and the lessons and the wisdom that are behind these myths, images, and symbols. These stories can be just as true for the Atheist as they are for a Christian or Buddhist or a Muslim or a fill-in-the-blank.

What Coraline and Adam & Eve all discovered was the Mu Portal. Not only an exit point from their own dependencies on religiosity, but the knowledge and wisdom to realize that their religiosity was not only unneeded, but the one thing that kept them captive. It is the only way to attain Spiritual Solace and growth. It is their only way to break Fear's grip.


Epilogue: Fear 

There can be no argument that punishment (and please remember, punishment is not the same as discipline) is within God’s power, right, and authority. However, is it within God’s nature? 1 John 4:16 says that “God is love”. It does not say that God is loving. It says that God is love itself, and love and hope are intricacy connected. 1 John 4:18, reads:

"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."

And again, Psalm 103:13:

"The Lord is like a father to his children, tender and compassionate to those who fear him."

Some Christians see "fearing God" as a judge or master and tremble in fear of punishment. However with the verses I've quoted this doesn't fit at all, especially 1 John 4:18.

There are two types of fear, servile fear and filial fear. I believe the only justified fear (for a Christian) is filial fear. Servile fear is the fear of a slave and has nothing to do with the type of fear that is the origin of wisdom. Filial fear "drives out all fear" (1 John 4:18), it drives out servile fear - it drives out the fear of a slave - the fear of punishment, the fear of "holy terror".

I would say that filial fear really isn't fear at all. It is interesting because if these types of Christians are scared to death of what God thinks of you or what he may do to you to punish, then, as 1 John 4:18 says, "...because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love", makes me wonder about these people. Sounds like this servile fear of God and what He, as a Slave Master, can or will do to you makes one more slaves than children.

This servile fear will spiritually murder you on the inside.

“When we feel the need to be seen to be good, like a frightened child, we will pretend in order to please. Pretense kills more people than cancer”. The Beautiful Life, Bloomsbury, London, 2007, pg. 60

...and that, I think, is the defining difference between the two. Pretense. Wearing Masks. Hiding.

Attempting to be something to appease a deified spiritual superman in the sky.

But it is filial fear that I believe is the path to freedom and wisdom. Once we cease fearing punishment and constant reprisals we become free to accept accountability and responsibility. We are no longer dependent upon this deified spiritual superman; in fact, we become free of this idolized anthropomorphic God.

This concept of servile fear vs. filial fear is not unique to Christianity by any means.
Verse 63 of the Tao Te Ching speaks of how

"[M]any young people go to school because they are required to do so. Adults go to work because if they don't, they will not receive the necessities of life. Most people go to church because they believe that if they don't go, they won't get into heaven. Most people don't commit crimes, because, if they do, they will go to prison. Even most babies and young children are accommodated to the system of coercion by physical punishment when they do something that displeases their parents... The use of force indoctrinates us into behaving contrary to our human natures and contrary to the [Tao]." Ralph Alan Dale's translation and commentary of The Tao Te Ching.

Why do we not run a red light or speed when we drive? Usually it is because we do not want to get a speeding ticket (fear of punishment), not because of a knowledge and concern of the dangers it may inflict upon others.

The Dharma Entanglement: The Doctor-Manhattan-Syndrome

The graphic novel, Watchmen, made Time magazine's list (2005) of All Time 100 Greatest Novels to be read (and the only graphic novel to make the list, alongside the likes of J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, George Orwell's Animal Farm, Margaret Mitchell's Gone with the Wind, and William Golding's Lord of the Flies). Yes, it was also made into a movie in 2009, and a good one at that, but the book is still worth the read!

Watchmen takes place in an alternate universe in which our recent history is re imagined with superheros present (from the 1950's through the Vietnam War up 'til today – with the potential of an American-Soviet doomsday war looming overhead).

Nite Owl (a Batman analogue) who relies upon Owl-themed technology and gadgets.
Silk Spectre (both) were highly trained in hand-to-hand combat and martial arts.
The Comedian was more of a super soldier in the sense of the arsenal of weapons he seemed to enjoy using.
Ozymandias is the zenith of the human potential – using 100% of his brain and having achieved mastery over his mind and body.
Rorschach, a masked vigilante, and nighttime crime fighter whose sense of right and wrong are black-and-white in a gray coloured world.

The one commonality we find is that these superheros do not have super powers... and then we have Dr. Manhattan. A glowing blue skinned deity with – as both the character himself and the reader slowly discover – near omnipotent powers.

As Dr. Manhattan's powers grow, the more 'secrets of the universe' he becomes aware of (none of which are openly shared with the reader unfortunately), the more and more distant and disconnected to his fellow human beings he becomes, to the point where he would seem to have not so much achieved Enlightenment, but passed into the realm of becoming a god; Alien and disconnected to the human condition. He can no longer relate and eventually abandons humanity and leaves Earth to pursue what we can only imagine to be his own interests or further enlightenment.

There's a great line in the movie A Fish Called Wanda where Wanda (Jamie Lee Curtis) corrects her dullard partner in crime Otto (Kevin Kline),

”Let me correct you on a few things... The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself!"”

I call this the Doctor-Manhattan-Syndrome: Buddhism gone terribly wrong.(And let's not kid ourselves. It isn't solely restricted to Buddhism. We've all seen our fair share of the Doctor-Manhattan-Syndrome run amok in Christian circles as well. Who's saved and who isn't and a hedonistic obsession for self-salvation. The other side of this coin is the counterfeit compassion of attempting to 'save others' through prosytlization to the point where either people become projects – dehumanized – or bragging rights to how many people one has 'saved'. But I digress).

The Doctor-Manhattan-Syndrome is an exercise in missing the point, or totally becoming self-serving in our pursuit of (self) enlightenment or (self) salvation.

Interestingly, this "perfected" (if we can really call it that) state of Holistic Solace could be synonymous with what many might mistakenly understand Enlightenment to be. Because alone, it is incomplete and self-serving. This Holistic Solace, this state of "Enlightenment", this Doctor-Manhattan-Syndrome would be lacking in one's ability to discern, absorb, and understand truth and have critical deficiencies in Compassion if not completely separated from it.

The Doctor-Manhattan-Syndrome would be the Buddha's enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree and no more. He would have simply become enlightened and found no need to share this - let alone teach - to anyone else.

I believe when we focus our efforts on improving our mental and spiritual solace(s) alongside striving to find a better and more harmonious physical health, we slowly, surely, and gradually move towards a better and 'higher' soter state. Being 'healed' (salus), but more accurately, being made whole; unified. But these 'stages'; these areas of healing and unification and growth are all inner, private, and personal. By no means must we be perfect in these self-improvement endeavors, but we must be 'whole' enough (soter) to see clearly. We must be 'healed' enough (salus) to reach out and help others.

The-Doctor-Manhattan-Syndrome is when the effort is successful but our vision remains deluded and we can see no need or desire or purpose for compassion. It is an empty enlightenment.

Solace and Compassion are entangled by Dharma.

Judged by the Colours in my Skin

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/06/youre-bothering-me-column

Liz Braun writes the column, "You're Bothering Me" in the Toronto Sun. On Friday, Sept. 7th, 2012, the Ottawa Sun  published the article, "Think before you ink!" .

I guess it's socially acceptable to judge a person by the colour(s) of their skin.

She says, "A generation ago, psychiatric textbooks noted more than 3 tattoos was a sign of psychosis".

Homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association up until 1972. Does that mean we're justified in judging, discriminating and looking down upon the gay community? According to Mrs. Braun's logic, apparently so!

The Michigan study done 'just a few years ago' in the journal of Personality and Mental Health, and its suggestion that there's some kind of link between heavily tattooed patients and signs of suicidal tendencies, sexual abuse, or substance abuse, was nothing less than manipulative.

Oh yes, but there's Liz Braun's passive disclaimer, "Calm down: The statistics refer to psych patients, not members of the general population".
Really? Than why list it at all?
I put this in the same category as saying, "No offense, but you're ugly". Prepping your insult with "No offense but..." does nothing to take the offensiveness away, nor does it give permission to say one's harmful words.

I think it is fantastic that the social value of tattoos have changed over the past 2 generations. We've become more tolerant and open minded. That's a good thing. (Maybe that's something the WWII soldiers brought back with them as well as their tattoos).

There can be no denying that tattoos shouldn't be gotten on a whim. But why list celebrities who have removed their tattoos and body art? Why not list celebrities who have gotten tattoos? (And since when  are celebrities suddenly a beacon of wisdom? Britney Spears? Definitely a roll model for our younger generation! Not.)

I think it's a good thing that we have the science and technology not only to provide beautifully tattooed artwork within a safe and sterile environment, but also the ability to have them removed for those who make that choice.

And that's my point; Choice.
I don't discriminate against the un-inked. I would like to think those who are tattooed should not be judged either, but apparently this article states otherwise. Regardless of whether you, or I are tattooed, not tattooed, or 'ex-tattooed', I don't want to be judged by the colour(s) of my skin.

I think what I find most offensive about this article is the fact that it attempts to hide behind the facade of simply giving advice to think twice before getting a tattoo. It is anything but.

Liz Braun is not making the point of 'think twice before you get a tattoo', regardless of the article's opening and closing paragraphs. Her point is that getting a tattoo (and by implication, being tattooed) makes you mentally deficient, mentally questionable, damaged, or somehow less of a person, and she backs this up with misinformation and half-truths (isn't that propaganda?)
To me this is inciting discrimination.

Please feel free to leave your thoughts or comments.
You can contact Liz Braum directly at her email, liz.braun@sunmedia.ca or at twitter, @LizBraunSun

“Free Will”, by Sam Harris; review and commentary

“Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control. We do not have the freedom we think we have.

“Free will is actually more than an illusion(or less), in that it cannot be made conceptually coherent. Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them”. pg. 5

This is an odd statement. I am simply being told what the facts are. Not convinced by any sort of method. Are these two paragraphs meant as an introduction?

”Imagine a perfect neuroimaging device that would allow us to detect and interpret the subtlest changes in brain function. You might spend an hour thinking and acting freely in the lab, only to discover that the scientists scanning your brain had been able to produce a complete record of what you would think and do some moments in advance of each event.” pg. 10

"Imagine what it would be like to see the time log of these mental events, alongside video of your associated behavior, demonstrating that the experimenters knew what you would think and do just before you did.” pg. 11, Bold text added.

At this point in the book, it would seem that Sam Harris is giving us a completely hypothetical situation; posing a rhetorical question, but yet – somehow – expecting us to take it as fact. Let's hope these ”facts” materialize later in the book.

Unfortunately, what I find later in the book is disappointing. On page 24 we find more speculation.

”If we were to detect their conscious choices on a brain scanner seconds before they were aware of them, they would be rightly astonished – because this would directly challenge their status as conscious agents in control of their inner lives. We know that we could perform such an experiment, at least in principle, and if we tuned the machine correctly, subjects would feel that they we were reading their minds (or controlling them)".

This is followed by a footnote, but a footnote worth taking notice to. This footnote, number 11, states, ”Unfortunately, there is some uncertainty as to whether the experiment was ever performed”.

Later (page 40) has another footnote (number 17) noting, ”...this notion of counterfactual freedom is also scientifically untestable. What evidence could possibly be put forward to show that one could have acted differently in the past?” Once again, dealing in speculation.

I have always attempted to be careful in my life and my decisions. I think it is important to ask yourself, can any good come of this?

"We did not know what we intend to do until the intention itself arises... this insight does not make social and political freedom any less important. The freedom to do what one intends, and not to do otherwise, is no less valuable than it ever was”. pg. 13

I agree and I am forced to question what is the intent of this book, this thesis? Can any good come of it? What is Sam Harris' actual goal? It makes me wonder if this entire premise – free will or no free will – is little more than a clever exercise, either as an intellectual argument, or simply being right.

In the introduction, he suggests that the question of free will touches a great many things, including morality and religion. Stating that without free will we lose our concept of sinners and criminals, guilt and innocence, and punishment. Although I do not believe he has a 'chip on his shoulder' about religion, there is definitely something at stake in the debate over free will.

What I find interesting is that he states,

"Consider what it would take to actually have free will. You would need to be aware of all the factors that determine your thoughts and actions, and you would need to have complete control over those factors. But there is a paradox here that vitiates the very notions of freedom - for what would influence the influences? More influences? None of these adventitious mental states are the real you. You are not controlling the storm, and you are not lost in it. You are the storm”. Pg. 13-14

Interestingly, this is ”emptiness” in Buddhism, or ”dependent-arising” (or interdependence). Nothing - most especially the mind – has independent existence. (Although an argument can be made that Buddhism isn't a religion, but rather a scientific/empirical 'system' or philosophy. I think I may have 'bumped' into Sam Harris on the Buddhist discussion forum New Buddhist. It confused me as to exactly what he might be 'selling' here).

It saddened me to see the methodology of debate present. In the opening of the chapter entitled Changing the Subject, Sam Harris throws out the terms, determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism - clearly addressing an audience well versed in the Free Will debate. (It is also the chapter where a couple of the uncertain and untestable results are mentioned. This is religiosity for the Atheist). This entire exercise reminds me of attempting to learn and hear the various theological Christian camps' debates over Eternal Conscious Torment, Universalism, and Annihilationism. At some point, the arguments become so self-absorbing, basic practicality has long since become secondary or even abandoned. (I mean, outside of the fun and joy of debate, how important is it really, and what good can come it?)

What I believe Sam Harris sets out to do is establish - scientifically – that we do not have Free Will. But ultimately he fails to scientifically prove the point. (I'm starting to believe that scientifically it cannot be proved either way). I think the book is reaching for scientific certainty where certainty might not exist. I cannot decide who would be this books targeted audience. A friend of mine (and self-proclaimed Atheist) suggested this book for me to read, stating that it makes some great (and empirical) points as well as scientific tests and experiments that prove our choices are completely predicable. Clearly, this individual saw the points he wanted to see but looked no deeper, as many of these tests and experiments are somewhat questionable.

Maybe a better direction to pursue would have been the implications of whether Free Will exists or not. How this can shape how we view and relate to other people. Do we see those guilty of crimes as terrible sinners deserving little more than punishment, or do we see them as victims of circumstances far beyond their control and deserving of help? Do we see our own successes are a reflection of how great and important we are, or humbly concede our fortunate luck? Or maybe we should question the danger of allowing ourselves to absolute ourselves of any and all responsibility for our actions. I would have been much more interested in seeing this line of thought, exploration, and reasoning followed.

The conclusion of this book is anything but conclusive. At best what I gleaned from this book is that in the debate over Free Will, nomenclature – how one chooses to define Free Will – become critical in winning one's argument.

The Dharma Entanglement: Introduction

We, the human species are by nature gregarious; social creatures. We live in communities. I also believe that is why we are religious; or at least have a tendency towards it. I believe we are all religionists of one flavour or another.

Maybe I shouldn't use the word “religion”. It can cause some confusion. 'Religion' often implies a necessary belief in God or gods. It doesn't need to. I would count Atheism as a 'religion' for the purposes of this discussion. Maybe a better term we should use is Belief-System. Yes, we'll save the term 'religion' for the disease of religiosity...

Belief-Systems

Because we are gregarious and because we must live amongst our fellow man – and with ourselves – I think this is the reason we all have and follow some sort of Belief-System. Some of us can happily name and identify which Belief-System we belong to and follow. Some of us cannot. Some of us think we can but in reality don't know.

Our ability to acknowledge which one Belief-System we belong to has no bearing of the fact that we all do. There are many of us who follow a Belief-System that has no official recognized status, or even some who follow an unnamed, poor, and damaging Belief-System. But the fact is we follow one or some.

Which, ultimately, brings us to an important question. What should we expect our Belief-System to do for us? What purpose should it serve and what purpose does it serve?

"Western philosophy, having little connection with everyday living, is (to this observer, at least) comparatively egocentric and impractical, with much Arguing and Theorizing, and much bounding back and forth across the intellectual landscape.

"Western philosophy has become the domain of pipe-smoking, tweed-suited college professors (who may profess it but not necessarily practice it) and hypercerebral students who, for all their intelligence, often seem to have a hard time washing their clothes or repairing the lawn mower.

"In the East generally... philosophy has always been considered of no value unless it can be, and is, applied in one's daily life.

"Out of the "Hundred Schools" of Chinese philosophy, only two - Confucianism and Taoism - have survived. They have lasted through thousands of years because they have proven the most Useful."
Benjamin Hoff, "The Te of Piglet"

What should we expect our Belief-Systems to do?
It's funny because this was the final question I came to during my 25 year 'travels' as a spiritual sojourner. An unfortunate event triggered this journey for me and began my searching for answers. - And boy did I find answers! - But that wasn't what made this journey so difficult and so challenging. Unbeknown to me, it wasn't answers that I should have been searching for, but questions. The challenge was that the questions, over the years,  kept changing.

I'm one to believe there's nothing new under the sun. I'm not going to present the things I learned as ideas I came up with or created or invented, but rather as concepts I discovered and stumbled upon. Men thousands of years ago – much more educated and wiser than I'll ever be – have summoned some of the concepts and thoughts that I desperately struggle with up in a single word. No, there is nothing new under the sun, least of all what I write here.

So, what should we expect and demand of our Belief-Systems? What should we demand of our religions? And when they fail to provide these expectations and demands are we ready and willing to eject them either wholesale or partially?

(It was late February 2012 when I had to submit my written thesis for my Black Belt examination in Taekwon-do. It was entitled “Solace & Compassion” and it was at that point when the purpose of most (all?) Belief-Systems solidified to me).

I should think our Belief-Systems and our religions should provide us three things and enjoy the byproduct of a fourth.

1) It should not provide us truth. It should provide us with the methods and tools to acquire, accept, and manage truth.
2) It should provide us with direction and guidance to Solace; inner peace (be it physical, mental, spiritual, or all three).
3) It should teach, foster, and help nurture Compassion for others. (We should be watchful that it doesn't pretend and offer a counterfeit compassion; pity).

A byproduct of these three points is community. And as gregarious creatures by nature – like or not – we live in communities. Families, friends, social circles, clubs, gangs, churches, unions, the list goes on. Not all communities are good; we must live in them never-the-less. But we can make good communities.

It is important to understand these three points and how they are intertwined with one another. Without Solace one is divided and conflicted. Without some degree of Solace caring for others is a near impossibility. To a certain degree, Compassion becomes the fruit of Solace. But yet so too can the opposite be true. Genuinely helping another – even a single kind act – can bring peace of mind and a sense of balance and harmony.

Dharma

I wholeheartedly believe how we view, accept, and acquire truth heavily influences both our Solace and Compassion. If we are set in our ways and in what we hold to be true, regardless of what our experiences show us or how reality is, we will repeatedly come into conflict with those “facts” of reality. If we cannot or will not change to accommodate new or corrected truths then it becomes increasingly more difficult to live at peace with the world and the people around us. A Belief-System or religion that teaches us specific and erroneous truths rather than how to find truths can only undermine us.

I find it interesting those people who seem to feel the need to argue and defend the truth (often their truth). Truth needs no defending. It simply is. It should be self-revealing and obvious.

I call this 'Dharma'. This is not Dharma in the Buddhist sense of the three gems or the three treasures. This is not the Buddhist teachings that indoctrinates one into Buddhism. This 'Dharma' is simply the self-evidential truth, but more specifically our openness to being aware of it and accepting it. It is a reflection of ourselves more than the truth in question.

Dharma is not truth itself, but one's understanding of and methods of acquiring, accepting, and managing the truth...

...and Solace and Compassion are entangled by Dharma.

This is what I call ”The Dharma Entanglement”. This is the goal and purpose of a Belief-System I have come to believe and pursue.

Below is a map, a flowchart of sorts, showing the paths and conclusions I have come to and discovered. Although it shows the various paths and conclusions I have encountered it is extremely generalized and extremely summerized.  Yes, it will look like I am painting with a very broad brush. It may even appear judgmental, but please understand, years were spent (wasted?) following (not studying) these numerous and meandering paths. It is by no means meant to be a universal truth, but only one I have experienced. (I had been extremely hesitant in using this Excel-chart. It is far too 'mathematical'; far too black and white. It frightens and concerns me that it gives the wrong message that this entire process is little more than an equation, which it is anything but. Each and every point on this chart could easily be a lengthy post onto its own, and in fact, some of them are).

(The chart itself is a link to the Excel-chart proper and this chart has numerous links to various topics and articles).

When I had began this blogsite, The Woven, the idea was to explore and hopefully discover the commonalities between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. But like I mentioned earlier, the challenge was not in the answers I discovered, but that the questions kept changing. What it ended up becoming was an exploration of Atheism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and Gnosticism.

The Mu Portal

Although there could be many possible paths to the Dharma Entanglement, ultimately I believe “Mu” is a necessary gateway to escape the shackles of Religiosity and enjoy the emancipation of Spirituality. (Only then can Spiritual Solace be realized, cultivated, and nurtured).

Mu is Japanese for “not” often used as a prefix, but can stand alone, simply as 'not'. It can mean to “unask the question", suggesting that the problem does not lie within the answer (there is no correct answer), but within the question itself. The problem needs to be approached from another point of view.

I have found many monotheists (as well as many Atheists) lack a healthy sense of Doubt, and suffer from an addiction to Certainty. And when we fall victim to the Certainty Addiction everything becomes a matter of knowing and fact and proving one's beliefs. Faith dies. Truth takes a back seat to being Right. Thus enters the hidden and silent inner conflict. Combine this addiction with inner conflict and the monotheist's concept (fear) of Damnation and their Solace's destruction is complete.

”Mu” (regardless of which avenue one arrives here or even by which name one recognizes it as) is the ability of simply 'letting go' and be at peace with not-knowing. (And shortly we will discuss the value Gnosticism can provide to approaching this gateway and better understanding of it through symbolism). Allowing a Faithful Doubt (rather than a Doubtful Faith) and living at peace with its mystery. Something many religious people (especially institutional religions) struggle with.

I think this gateway is critical to one's spiritual journey. Without it, it is simply stagnation. Growth becomes impossible. The entrapment of religiosity remains unbroken.

Solace(s)

There must be a great many paths to mental Solace; clarity of mind. I can only speak of my own experiences. For me it came through Guk-gi (“Self-Control”) and Jung-Joong-Dong (”stillness in motion” meditation), both from Traditional Taekwon-do's Jungshin Sooyang (“Moral Culture” - the base and underlying philosophy and principal behind Traditional Taekwon-do).

Physical Solace, is really little more than keeping your body healthy and balanced. I have began this process by certain dietary changes, being attended to by an acupuncturist and Traditional Chinese Medicine Doctor, and being physically active (In my case, practicing Taekwon-do). I take a daily dose of Bee Pollen to help build and maintain my immune system and I have recently chosen to give up alcohol (Aug. 20/12).

These three forms of Solace are a potentially long process and I do not want to give the idea that I am anywhere but at the beginning of this process. But one thing is clear. At least I have a 'map', so to speak – a direction.

"Holistic Solace, Soter, Salus"
I believe these three ideas of finding peace or a balance within oneself can be cumulative into something truly marvelous. I'm at a loss as to what it may be called. Holistic Solace; Soter; Salus (Salvation? Enlightenment?) It needs to be explored as to what it is, but it is part of this Dharma Entanglement; intrinsically tied into Dharma and Compassion. Clearly this "Holistic Solace/Soter/Salus" needs to be better fleshed out. As of this moment, I'll have to leave that concept for another time.

Gnosticism

Of the seven 'faiths' I have been looking at - Atheism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and – Gnosticism, must be the most peculiar of the lot.

There are hidden pearls of wisdom within it. There are also aspects of it present within many other Belief-Systems. It might at times be best viewed as fragmented. What complicates this further is that there was never a single group that we can refer to as 'the Gnostics' (capital 'G'). They were numerous, varied, and diverse. They existed in different times, different cultures, and different religions. It's surprising that we even use an umbrella term like Gnosticism for this entire group. But rather than focus on the underlying definition and traits that unify these varied groups, I prefer to focus on the bits and pieces worth extracting and keeping; those pearls of wisdom that we would do well to pay heed to, and have helped me on my way.

One strong feature in Gnosticism is their understanding of myth (mythos). It would seem at times deliberately opposed to historicity and purposely to combat literalism.

I particularly found values in Valentinus' gnosticism, a Christian Gnosticism. In his reinterpretation of the Genesis story of the Garden of Eden, we find a story through metaphor of an inner struggle to escape the oppressive slavery of Religion and suggestions of Religiosity's petty and insecure god.

The Garden of Eden is not paradise, but the Cage of Religiosity. The Serpent is not Satan, but Sophia - God the Mother - the Holy Spirit - showing the path (or the way) to the Mu Portal. The Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is not Death, but to pass through the Mu Portal (freedom from Religiosity - emancipation), and only then can the Fruit of the Tree of Life be attained (The Fruit of the Tree of Life being the Cosmic Christ (Christ the Revealer rather than the Redeemer), Sophia, and Abba (literally "Daddy" in Hebrew, as opposed to the God of Eden, Yahweh/T'ien), all understood as metaphor, not literal history.

And it is here that we find an example of Gnosticism's strongest points.
But allow me to jump to a slight tangent for a moment:

T'ien, Yahweh, & Sophia

The Confucianist's concept of a Heavenly Power shared a certain resemblance to the Old Testament image of God. The Confucianists called it T'ien - “Sky”, “heaven”, “Supreme Ruler”. T'ien was seen as masculine and often ferocious. It needed to be appeased with sacrifices and rituals. It took sides. It granted authority. It transferred authority and sovereignty directly to the Emperor, the Son of Heaven.

T'ien was said to grant material prosperity as rewards (thus the Confucianist equation of wealth with goodness).

T'ien was considered something to fear rather than love, hence the emphasis on unquestioning obedience and loyalty and the absence of terms such as Compassion.

The Taoists on the other hand, saw Heavenly Power as both masculine and feminine, as symbolized by the Taoist's Yin-Yang symbol.

In the natural world however, Taoists saw it as mostly feminine in its actions, what Lao-Tsu called “The Mother of Ten Thousand Things”.

It was gentle like flowing water. It was humble and generous, like a fertile valley, feeding all who come to it. It was hidden, subtle, and mysterious. It took no sides, it wasn't tribal, and granted no authority. It could not be influenced or manipulated or appeased by sacrifices or rituals.

Like the dichotomy between the Confucianist and Taoist view of Heavenly Power, the Gnostics (Valentinus especially) revered and worshiped Sophia - the divine feminine.

Sophia - God's wisdom personified. Possibly the third aspect of the Holy Trinity itself; God the Mother.

The parallel between the Confucianist's masculine and ego-driven (insecure?) Heavenly Power, T'ien, and the Old Testament's masculine and blood-thirsty tribal God, Yahweh, is uncanny.
This projected God even carries itself forward into modern day Christianity with certain adherents' refusal to acknowledge anything but a masculine God, down to the Prosperity Gospel, Confucianist's twin image of wealth being a sign of goodness.

The Gnostic's divine feminine - Sophia - is the missing piece. Like the Taoists understanding of the feminine power active in the world around us, Sophia is the mother of all things. Gentle like flowing water, but never-the-less all-powerful like water. Even the stone cliffs are eroded away by the ocean. She is humble and non-egotistic. Generous and accepting all who come to her. She is the God of non-tribalism as she desires no sacrifices and cannot be influenced, manipulated, and needs no appeasement.

These factors, the wisdom of gnosticism, can be an equally valid path to the gateway of Mu; an escape from the bondage of Religiosity; literalism, legalism, an addiction to certainty, tribalism, and into the freedom of spirituality.

But the point here isn't to convince you of a female God. That would only lead you astray, making you fall victim to the addiction of certainty but only of a different flavour. The point is that we do not and cannot know God fully. God cannot be simply placed within a convenient box, categorized or clearly defined. If we believe we can do this, then the God we believe in is nothing more than a personal projection; an illusion. It is an act of supreme arrogance. And this applies equally to the Atheist as well. You do not and cannot know of God's non-existence. You cannot know for certain of God's theistic or atheistic natures. You can only choose to believe in it. To do anything else is arrogance.

I think in the opening verses of the Tao Te Ching, Lao-Tsu put it best, ”The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao”.

Which is why I believe and have listed Agnosticism as a potential path to Mu. Because a healthy agnosticism embraces Doubt as part of their faith. There are some “theological” issues you must be at peace with simply not knowing.

We can see the crossover Gnosticism shares with Taoism.

I know many people who would place Buddhism as Atheistic, but I think that's in error. Some Buddhists are theists of one sort or another. Some Buddhists are atheists. But ultimately I think Buddhism doesn't address the issue. It simply doesn't ask the question because it cannot honestly be answered beyond the statement, ”I believe...”

And for those who would pass through The Mu Gateway, ”belief” must not be abandoned, but must be acknowledged for only what it is. A choice but not necessarily fact. Belief but not necessarily truth.

I remember reading John Hick's God Has Many Names in 2008. He was speaking of interfaith discussions and pluralism.

He held hope for Judaism, Christianity, Islam (monotheistic religions) and Hinduism, but saw potential pitfalls and challenges with non-theistic religions like Buddhism, Taoism, other Eastern religions, and Humanism.

I think this demonstrates the problem quite well. Is the topic and goal at hand to find consensus and common ground on the issue of theism? Is it really all a Question of Theism? (Yes, I admit, many people will make it an issue of exclusively Theism), but is that the entire purpose and goal of religion and Belief-Systems? Are we really only concerned with being Right? Are we attempting once again to defend a truth which needs no defending?

Arguing and proving and defining God? Or is it only the shallow and spiritual hedonistic self-serving pursuit of Salvation or Spiritual Enlightenment?
No, I don't believe that.
Solace and Compassion. Plain and simple.

Heffalumps & Woozles

One of my favourite stories from A.A. Milne's Winnie-the-Pooh is "Chapter III: In Which Pooh & Piglet Go Hunting and Nearly Catch a Woozle".

If you can get your hands on a copy, it's well worth the read.

It begins on a fine winter's day when Piglet joins Pooh-bear on a walk. He asks Pooh what's he doing to which Pooh answers, "Hunting. Tracking something".

Piglet looks down, and sure enough, there's a trail of paw-marks! "A Woozle!" he exclaims.

As the pair continues, suddenly they are tracking two animals now! Two Woozles! Pooh asks if Piglet would mind staying with him in case the Woozles turn out to be Hostile Animals. Piglet agrees.

Onward they journey until a third set of tracks joins the previous two Woozles! Now there are three! Pooh notices that these third tracks are different and must be a Wizzle who has joined the other two Woozles.

Now both Piglet and Pooh are just a little bit anxious and becoming frightened because they are outnumbered, but they continue on. Their adventure as trackers couldn't get any worse when a fourth set of tracks are discovered! "Three Woozles and a Wizzle" Pooh states. Now Piglet finds an excuse to leave as he is quite frightened by being outnumbered two to one and the ferocious nature of these animals.

The story ends with Christopher Robins overlooking Pooh from the high vantage point of a tree and pointing out how Pooh-bear and Piglet have been wandering round a spinney in circles, doubling back upon themselves repeatedly. Pooh hits his paw into one of the track and says, "I see now. I have been Foolish and Deluded, and I am a Bear of No Brain at All".

It is a cute and sweet story. But I think there is a wisdom present here. Pooh and Piglet are convinced there are Woozles and Wizzles. (I suppose Heffalumps and Woozles and Wizzles could be cryptids).

The evidence was right before them! Pooh-bear even has a witness. They wre looking at concrete facts. There can be no denying that they were following actual, real, emperical tracks!

Told from the simple children's story we can clearly and easily see through Pooh's delusion (Even Pooh-bear himself becomes enlightened to the truth by the end). But I believe there is a lesson here. I believe at times we are guilty of the same thing. we tend to have a difficult time when attempting to differenciate between our facts and our interpretations; what we want to call "truth". I think we very often miss the point that most facts are conditional. They are only true under certain conditions.

The sky is blue. I can see it and you can too.
At night the sky is black. I can see it and so can you.
 These are facts, but the truth of the matter is Night-and-Day. But even this perceived truth is conditional. Step off the planet or into deep space and this truth becomes conditional. Step onto a spacestation and the truth becomes a subjective man-nade construct.

These are conditions and issues we can see and maybe even touch. Inagine the danger we run into when we deal with abstracts like Theism/Atheism and Theology!

If we can't or won't accept that many perceived facts are actually condiional truths - unlike Pooh-bear - we stand little chance of escaping our delusions.

William Roache (Ken Barlow of Coronations Street) had once said, "Fear is a very strange thing. So much imagination is involved".

I think Mr. Roache hit the nail on the head.
Pooh and Piglet were frightened of a Hostile Animal called a Woozle. (Okay, maybe Piglet more than Pooh). Their fear was real even though imagined. (I can only imagine what horrible things a Woozle would do to me!!)

...but we have them, don't we; Heffalumps & Woozles?
I know I have them. If I can point them out and name them they would cease to exist because they can only exist in my imagination. I know I have them because I have encountered them in my past; delusions. Facts whose truths simply aren't.

That's why I - like Pooh and Piglet - am so frightened of them.
Their very nature of fear.
Their habitat is my ignorance and my imagination nurtures and feeds them.

There's an irony in this wisdom. Now that I'm aware, I have to at least attempt to purge them. I have to go on a Woozle hunt... but isn't that what Pooh-bear started out doing?
"Hunting. Tracking Something".