"The Uncontrolling Love of God", by Thomas Jay Oord: Review & Commentary

(By Guest Blogger/Writer - Michel Weatherall)

I will begin this book review with a spoiler.

Sometimes we hold onto something so tightly, we cannot ever let it go. We become blind and forget we are even desperately clinging onto it. These are blind Sacred Cows.

I believe many religious traditions are guilty of this and thus struggle with the theological problem of pain, suffering, and evil.

The answer is simple but heretical.

God cannot be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent.

Either God is All-Powerful, but not All-Loving...

or God is All-Loving, but not All-Powerful.

You cannot have it both ways. ("Almighty" and "Omnipotence" are not synonymous. "Divine love preconditions God's almightiness". Pages 188-191).

I personally have come to this conclusion several years ago. I opt with the latter: God's Love trumps God's power. Let me tell you, it isn't a popular position. And not having the theological clout makes this a difficult position to hold.

Thomas Jay Oord sees this clearly.

He expertly juggles herculean theological challenges that - although any serious amature theologian may not know their proper terms or nomenclatures - should most definitely recognize and identify. Christian or not, these challenges are the undertow of our reality, one way or the other, with serious practical implications. They are important questions and should not be disregarded or relegated to the realm of speculative contemplation. 

Personally, I approach these issues from a perspective of 'God' akin to something like the Hindu concept of the Brahman, or the Taoist's Tao, but I still hold onto the Christian belief of God being - not loving - but Love itself. (And in chapter 4, pg. 83, he systematically lists the 'types' of Providence-beliefs, including mine (pg. 94-95). And just in case, my gentle reader, you're curious, my views of God's providence falls somewhere between points 4-5 (God is Essencially Kenotic - God Sustains as an Impersonal Force). My point being, we all begin from a certain paradigm and this book is written with that understanding.)

An old ex-pastor friend of mine used to tell me that I had to be careful how I chose to write about some of the theological concerns and issues I often address. He said, I often had interesting and valid points that certain religious groups would do well to hear and listen to, but the risk was to avoid putting it in such a way as to turn them away.

My friend was right. But sometimes I think there is value in being up front and honest; in thinning out the herd; in weeding out the garden; separating the chaff from the wheat.

This is a book many religious groups would benefit well to study.
Thomas Jay Oord has balls the size of church-bells with some of the theological issues he addresses in this new book. He doesn't shy away or attempt to sidestep some of the most difficult theological challenges there are, but rather embraces them and faces them head-on. No doubletalk, no Christianese, no churchtalk. In fact, he chastises some of these less than satisfactory and submissive answers. This is not a watered down selective theology made to look pretty.

The existence of evil. Free Will vs. Determinism. Libertarian Freedom. A non-all-controlling God. Regularists vs. Necessitarians. Natural Law. Euthyphro's dilemma. Evolutionary Emergence. Divine Kenosis, divine impassibility & mutability, and the list goes on!
This is no light of fluffy read.

I have given his previous book, "The Nature of Love: A Theology" a great review, but my one complaint was that he needed to significantly expand on his concept of Essential Kenosis. This book promises to do just that.

Ultimately, in my humble opinion, this book is a sequel to "The Nature of Love: A Theology". In my review of "The Nature of Love: A Theology" the only real criticism I found was that Thomas Jay Oord's revolutionary concept of "Essencial Kenosis" needed more fleshing out.

In "The Uncontrolling Love of God" he does exactly this, not only going into significantly more detail and exposition, but also summerizing and exploring popular and currently held beliefs and theories that have attempted to address these difficult issues, and ultimately come up short or have failed.

I am an adherent to "Essential Kenosis", have come to these self-same conclusions myself. However, in "The Uncontrolling Love of God", I feel that the author needed to better explain how "Essencial Kenosis" addresses random harmful (genuinely evil) acts.

"Essential Kenosis" adequately explains the existence of pain and suffering in our world while maintaining God's inculpability and inability to intervene when dealing with individuals of free-will or agency. But once "Essential Kenosis" launches into issues of non-agency, or the inanimate, or aggregates, or 'laws of nature', it becomes less than crystal clear.

I admit, part of the fault may fall upon the reader (myself) for I have not given this particular issue thorough thought or exploration. It is definitely something I personally need to better address. But let's be clear here: I am not the one proposing "Essential Kenosis" (even though I edorse it). The burden of onus lied upon the author, Thomas Jay Oord, and I'm not convinced he followed this through thoroughly enough. Maybe this could be material for a new book? (Essential Kenosis, part 3?)

This becomes more problematic and convoluted as he attempts to address the issue of Miracles. Although the section pertaining to divine miracles is detailed, I will do the injustice of simplifying it (it is still worth the read) in saying I feel as if he is dancing and weaving around the problem of divine miracles by redefining it; possibly becoming fixated on 'hammering a round peg into a square hole'. He is attempting to force the Christian criterion of Miracles into "Essential Kenosis" where I am not sure it fits. I think a simple point of its beauty is missed: Essential Kenosis does not have to be exclusively Christian.

There is a near insurmountable challenge present when dealing with Christian Miracles: It is nearly always accepted as God intervening.  The author offers a new paradigm to consider. When free-willed agents (us) interact with God's uncoercive desires and will, this collaborative effort leads to a future closer to God's will or hope for the universe - what we might call the Kingdom of God (not the Heaven of the Afterlife); that maybe, this paradise-like world is within the natural scope of the 'laws of nature'; it is not supernatural, but simply natural; a simply unrealized potential. 

Although I am not a fan of approaching theories based exclusively upon the biblical witness, Thomas Jay Oord goes far beyond this method, building upon observation and evidence from Science, Philosophy and Theology. This book is thoroughly grounded.

"The Uncontrolling Love of God" belongs on any religious, spiritual, or theologian's bookshelf. This is a must read!

Five stars!

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the author.  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.

"Genesis, and the Rise of Civilization", by J. Snodgrass: Review and Commentary

(By Guest Writer - Michel Weatherall)

Like nearly all Christian, Spiritual, or Theological books I've read or reviewed, I feel it very important to understand the author's intent. If they're selling something, and if so, if they're up front about it.

It's important to know the confines (if any) or context in which the book should be viewed through; a theological lens if you will.

I do not believe J. Snodgrass holds any pretension in this regard. His intention is to explore and find the truth without any theological inhibitions, crutches, or addictions. It is best summoned up in the following lines:

"Do we read Genesis 1 as science or myth? Fact or fairy-tale? History or fiction or both? If it's not fact, can it still be true?"  pg. 86

"I would say if one must challenge the nature of physical reality in order for the Bible to make sense, then the Bible has already lost its function in helping us understand the world we line in." pg. 111

 Snodgrass readily draws from the bible, apocrypha books, Midrash, the Qu'ran, numerous cultures' mythologies, and various other author's commentaries (surprisingly interesting ones as well, such as Mark Twain and Isaac Asimov).

It is safe to say, one should slaughter their sacred cows before entering this book... and that's a good and sober thing. A prerequisite is to have already purged Bibliolatry from your system.
This is not a book for Christian Fundamentalists, 'Bible Christians', or Biblical Literalists.
But on the same note, neither is this book a stoic, academic study with intentions of discrediting the bible and reducing it to meaningless and valueless fairy-tale.

This is not a book for people selling their truths, but only for those interested in pursuit and understanding of the truth.

Ultimately, I think in this case, it would be best to let the author speak for himself. At the end of the book the author adds his Original Introduction (pg. 282). This section is well worth the read, especially when attempting to gage the author's intentions, goals, and concerns.

Now that we know what we're getting into; now that I've peaked your interest or turned or scared you off the book, let's begin.

Let's jump right to the conclusion, the gist, straight to the punchline.
The book of Genesis is a parable of the agricultural revolution, written, rewritten, and edited by numerous authors.

"With human population growth comes settlement expansion, deforestation, and a decline in wild game. Tribes of hunter/gathers have access to less land and diminishing resources. And so we read this as a narrative about a tribe on the brink of starvation being extorted into submission by settled agriculturalists" pg. 192

Esau/Jacob, Cain/Abel, Ishmael/Isaac; these narratives could be the same basic parable, as each community had its own story to explain how the herders and gardeners supplanted the hunters and gatherers.

Genesis repeatedly tells the story (told from both sides) of a progression  from nomadic tribal societies to a resource-storing agricultural civilization.

The book also seriously questions whether this Progress is truly an evolving and beneficial thing.

"A tribe tended to be around 40 people bound together by kinship, which encouraged sharing and mutual support. Put simply: nobody eats unless everybody eats, nobody goes hungry unless everybody goes hungry... The migratory nature of these nomadic tribes made accumulation of material wealth impossible (in nomadic society whoever has the most stuff falls behind). There would typically be a chieftain and a witch-doctor, but these were part-time jobs for people who could take on extra responsibilities beyond the same food-acquisition done by everyone else. Their authority would derive from respect, not coercion, and titles were rarely hereditary. (...average chieftains job discription was "First to work, last to eat")" pg. 22-23

 No elitism here. Reminds me of Lao Tzu's 4 types of society.

"...modern religions mostly focus on Salvation, being saved from animal activities like food, feces, and fornication, these earlier religions seem to have been more focused on nurture and fertility: the abundance of nature and successful human reproduction... these early religions were about integrating theology with biology, whereas Salvation religions are about segregating them into 'sacred' and 'profane'." pg. 23

Not only should the question whether this Progress is beneficial or not, it should make us take a sobering look at our modern day civilization and where we might be heading.

"In the wold, about 0.01% of naturally occurring biomass on this planet is edible by humans. On plantation lands cultivated for raising crops and livestock, up to 90% is edible. So an acre of land can feed far more farmers and herders than hunters and gatherers. But quantity is different from quality, and studies have shown that cultivated wheat has only half the protein-content of its wild relatives... The availability of more human food resulted in more human beings. Migratory nomads had to space out their births by an average of four years, so the first child could walk with the tribe while the second was carried." pg. 24

 "With increased population density comes certain side-effects: diseases and plagues from over-crowding, poor sanitation and a narrowing diet... Promising to releave these conditions by communicating with the gods, the priesthood mutated from tribal co-op to central corporation". pg. 25

 And when anything becomes an industry it becomes compromised.
This would ultimately lead to empire, armies and the feudal system as, "With additional population density also came a rise in competition and violence, compounded by diminishing wild game for hunting and finite farmland for a growing posterity". pg. 25

The point is hammered home with these sobering lines,

"Civilization did not arise in response to famine...

Famine arose in response to Civilization" pg. 32

But this "mutated" priesthood goes further.

The feminine divine had been overwritten by a male god.

Snodgrass even make mention of the often conveniently forgotten divine Wisdom,  Sophia. (my favourite)

"I'm probably the only person who's ever wondered this, but... What would Biblical Creation have looked like if there was a woman involved? And I'm not talking about a Pandora-character who messes everything up for everyone forever. I mean a feminine creation partner, a mother-goddess. Could anything like that exist in the Bible?

 "Actually yes, in Proverbs 8, which is centuries older than Genesis 1... This creation story stands out from its Biblical surroundings in that it is told from a feminine perspective." pg.'s 103-104

"More and more archaeological, anthropological and mythological research points to a male mutiny against a cooperative matriarchal culture. (It must be stressed here that this is not a dominating matriarchal culture -  it's not our current gender roles with women beating their husbands (though that's how patriarchal culture represents it with mythological symbols of sorceresses and sea-monsters and such). It's a cooperative culture with grandmothers as referees)." pg. 34

(There's a good and humorous analogy on pg's 100 & 101).

There is also an interesting theme at one point, basically Gnostic in flavour; specifically of rival and competing Gods. Although the word Gnostic isn't used (wisely) the gist is there.
I don't believe the point is to say that there is more than one God, but that the people of the time, through the cultural lens they wrote through, perceived it that way. And when their written works were rewritten, revised, and edited through the new lens of monotheism... a lot of confusion ensued.

Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac is a theologically difficult story. A God who demanded the sacrifice and the same God who prevented it? (pg's 174-175).

Yet Abraham is allowed to haggle with God over the wholesale slaughter of Sodom. So which is it? Does God want his followers to be absolutely unquestioning slaves ("sacrifice you son, Isaac - just shut up and do it!") or equal partner ("What's your thoughts about wiping out Sodom?")? How can one reconcile this Coercing God with this Covenant God? (pg. 182). (Another example includes pg. 205).

All these issues are questioned and explored through various and numerous parables throughout Genesis in an honest, easily readable, and enlightening way, with a light peppering of humour.

Snodgrass does not come off as condescending, pretentious, lecturing, or preachy, but simply as a fellow student in search of the truth.

To the religious, this will be a book to pick at; to debate, to analyse, and rebuke, and an opportunity to perform theological gymnastics.

To the spiritual, this will be a wondrous journey; emancipating, freeing, and eye-opening. This book might very well reclaim the truth of Genesis from the clutches of Fundamentalists and Literalists, and maybe even bring its wisdom home.

Too long have we been told that only two choices exist. A Creationist, literal, historic truth, or a scientific falsity.
The Christian Fundamentalists and the Secular Atheists (scientism) do not own these truths. This book is our opportunity to reclaim them.
This is a paradigm-shifter. This book isn't about Belief, it's about understanding.

To the seeker of spiritual truths, be they Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic, Taoist, or unlabeled, "Genesis and the Rise of Civilization" is a must read.









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.

"Cross Examined" by Bob Seidensticker: Commentary and Review

(By Guest Writer - Michel Weatherall)

Although I do believe there often times is truth in fiction, books like this can prove to be tricky, considering the author – Bob Seidensticken – is an Atheist and supporting the atheist world-view. There isn't anything wrong with this position. I just think it's important to identify this up front.

From a writing point of view there were a few surprising twists in the plot, but at other points, what I would have expect to be more climatic, were glossed over, almost removed to the realm of a footnote. Overall I enjoyed this novel. It captured my interest and held it. The characters were real and I could genuinely care for them.

At some points there seemed to be the theme that Science and Religion cannot mix, yet at other points almost the suggestion that the two are in need of one another.

Although many, if not all, the atheist arguments against Christianity in this book hold water, they are presented nearly exclusively as an argument against Christianity. They might be better served against religiosity instead. At times there seems to be an axe to grind, which concerns me, because if this is true, this form of Atheism is little more than a negative reaction.

I have come to many of the same conclusions (and arguments) the atheist-camp has regarding Christianity. (One of the reasons why I've moved beyond it). However, that doesn't make me an Atheist, nor does it make the Atheist right nor is Atheism the only answer.

Ultimately this fictitious book is about the very real and clandestine warfare of the human resources of the Faiths.

A large and overarching theme in Cross Examined is that of Apologetics (defending one's faith) and debate: the art of debate. Winning a debate does not necessarily mean being right nor finding the truth.

Too often times I have watched debates and it is more like a sparring match with either opponent showing off their debating talents and skills. However, I have found that one's skill at debate and the truth are not necessarily synonymous. We see this echoed by Jim Emerson on pg. 207:

"...let me stress one thing. Your primary goal in any discussion or even a debate must not be to win or even to defend your position. It must be to find the truth”.

I have seen individuals clearly win a debate but actually be wrong. They simply had better debating skills. I think sometimes a little bit too much emphasis is put onto the illusion of truth within Apologetics and Debates. They are not that decisive when it comes to the truth; they are more informative. It shouldn't be about winning. But I think this book addresses this issue in its subtle and elusive way.

Ultimately, I believe there is truth and wisdom within many of the world's many Belief-Systems, including Atheism and this book has potential for us to have a glimpse of it and learn from it. Never lose a healthy sense of doubt, scepticism, and most especially one's ability and permission to question.

But at points it would seem that Atheism is little more than a self-deluded scientism and at other points there's an acknowledgement that science is not all there is.

“Science give us an approximation of the truth, nothing more. Science is built on a body of facts that changes, and that's its strength.” pg. 187

I think one of the most interesting and telling points in this entire book is the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 itself. Obviously it is the catalyst for this novel, but it is so much more.

If we look at Reverent Samuel Hargrove (Evangelical Christianity) , Father Mordegreen (Roman Catholicism), Jim Emerson (Atheism), and Abbot Tanaka (Buddhism) and what they did in relation to the earthquake, we begin to see interesting truths in their varied orthopraxies – and action speaks louder than any statement of belief.

Hargrove (Evangelical Christianity) sees it coming, but does little to nothing to help the people avoid it nor offers succour after it strikes. Quite the opposite in fact! He monopolizes the situation and attempts to turn the events to his favour and benefit. (Expand his church, more members, more donations, more money, larger church building, more personal fame) – practices of a corrupt religion.

Father Mondegreen, attempts to offer relief in the only way he knows how; by holding Mass (pg. 95) – by ritual – regardless of its success or failure – practising a rote religion.

Jim Emerson, the protagonist's mentor, as we later find out, is quite rich. What does he do in regards to the earthquake? Well, very little at all. He continues with his own fears and activities and hobbies and interests and obsessions. In fact, his actions would seem to reflect a mechanistic-materialistic atheism; a belief-system without a soul, or compassion. The earthquake is little more than a scientific fact or a news story. It happens. People suffer. People die. Oh well. There's an emotional detachment and even indifference.

And finally there's one of my favourite characters – The Buddhist Abbot Tanaka – Thena's mentor. What does he do in regards to the earthquake? He takes all the survivors the monastery can handle in, and then takes more. My favourite line is “We share what we have. If we don't have enough, we will be hungry with our neighbors”. (pg. 76)

I think Tanaka represents Humanism but with a spiritual edge.

We see the absolute immoral corruption organized and institutional religions can become with Hargrove. We see the mindlessness and rote obedience religion can be with Mordegreen. We see the emotional detachment and soulless emptiness certain forms of Atheism can become. But it is only with Tanaka do we find a harmonized balance.

I've heard an analogy of humanity's search for truth being like a 3-legged stool. Its legs being Science, Philosophy, and Spirituality. The simple fact that there are 'areas' where science cannot (and should not) function, is important.

This is echoed by Paul's old friend, Virgil near the end.

“...it seems to me that using logic to take care of your spiritual needs is like slicing bread with a hammer”. (pg. 261)

At the end of the day, this book is ripe for discussion and debate. On an individual level or reading, if nothing else, it should make the reader aware of how sound – or unsound – their beliefs are. This book should prove a healthy read for Christians because it will shake them out of their cloistered, bobble-head (group-think) safety, should they be suffering from it.

I would love to see this book presented for study alongside the Alpha Course Manuel. I think it would keep everyone honest and sober.

~  ~  ~

Great Wisdom: Quotes Worth Remembering:

“Your primary goal in any discussion or even a debate must not be to win or even to defend your position. It must be to find the truth.” Jim Emerson, pg. 207

“Let me tell you a story. In some parts of Asia, hunters build an unusual monkey trap. They hollow out a coconut and tie it to the ground, then they put rice in the coconut. The monkey can reach in through a hole and grab the rice, but the hole is carefully cut so that it is big enough for the monkey's empty hand to go in but too small for his fist to come out, full of rice. When the hunters come, the monkey refuses to release the rice, and he is stuck. He traps himself... Preconceptions are like the rice. They are attractive, but we must let go to find the truth”. Abbot Tanaka, pg. 99

“Well, you're the philosopher, but seems to me that using logic to take care of your spiritual needs is like slicing bread with a hammer”. Virgil, pg. 261

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.

The Poky Little Puppy

(By Guest Writer - Michel Weatherall)

The classic Golden Book, The Poky Little Puppy, is one of the earliest books of my memory. I still have my copy with my name written in faded ink on the inside front cover. Beneath my name is my, now 16 year old, son's name and beneath that, my 14 year old daughter's name.

For as far as my memory goes, I can always remember being somewhat confused by the story's moral – if it had one.

Last night, my children said the very same thing.

The Poky Little Puppy is a story about five little puppies who dig a hole under the fence to go out for a walk in the wide, wide world. The fifth poky puppy is always behind the others. Eventually the Poky Little Puppy smells the dessert that is prepared for the puppies each night. The four other puppies smell it too and hurry home while the poky puppy takes his time. The four puppies then eat their dinner and are scolded by their mother for digging a hole under the fence and punished by not getting dessert. Much later, along comes the poky puppy after everyone is asleep and eats the desserts the other four were not allowed to have.

This scenario takes place twice. The poky little puppy enjoys rice pudding and chocolate custard, a full helping, intended for five puppies, all to himself. 

However, the third time, after the mother punishes the four puppies, they fill in the hole and the mother then rewards them with the strawberry shortcake dessert.When the Poky Little Puppy returns he is forced to squeeze through a hole in the fence and enjoys no dessert, as the four other puppies had already eaten it, and feels sorry for himself for being so poky.

The lesson appears to be that being poky and misbehaved will have consequences. But in this three day period, the poky little puppy has enjoyed eight times the dessert of each of the other puppies. It seems like the poky little puppy is being rewarded for being late and misbehaved. If there's a moral to this story, it is ambiguous or veiled. 

The five puppies were the ones – in spite of numerous warnings – that dug holes under the fence.
Let's be clear here.
This was the crime.
This is what they were punished for. What we know is that the Poky Little Puppy did not repair the damage (the dug hole) on the third excursion; the other four did.

Is there a point about loyalty to the group? Is there a point about being separate and distinct from the group? Is there a lesson about charity, waiting for the slowest (weakest) member? The moral seems lost or confused.

I think part of the lesson is that of Karma.
“It's a round world”.

You reap what you sow.
What goes around comes around.

Intentionally or not, the Poky Little Puppy allowed his four siblings to suffer the consequences of their punishment while he enjoyed what should have been their rewards. In the end however, the rolls were reversed. But I think there is more depth to this story.

I think the story's moral lies with the mother's actions and not the puppies at all. There is a lesson of incentives vs. deterrents.

Being rewarded for good behaviour vs. being punished for bad behaviour.
We see that deterrents – punishment for bad behaviour – not only doesn't work, but also creates injustice in their small world. Their mother's numerous warnings (the signs) and punishments do not stop the puppies from digging under the fence, and the injustice of the Poky Little Puppy being rewarded for his bad behaviour. It becomes out of balance.

By the end, the four puppies decide to fix the hold they dug, but this time are rewarded for their good behaviour. This succeeds. Justice is set aright and Balance is returned. The good behaving puppies reap their rewards while the badly behaving Poky Little Puppy suffers the consequences for his actions.

This strikes me as a lesson to parents on parenting (or for that matter, simply dealing with people in general).

This has very strong Taoist undertones. These lessons can be found in Lao Tzu's Toa Te Ching, specifically verse 63, "The Secrets of Getting Things Done".
Ralph Alan Dale, a Chinese-language translator of the Tao Te Ching comments the following on this verse:

...Lao Tzu's most important advice in life is to avoid coercion. It is... precisely opposite to how most of our institutions are programmed... 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. Lao Tzu says all this is wrong. The use of force indoctrinates us into behaving contrary to our human natures..." "The Tao Te Ching: Translated, Commenting & Introduction" by Ralph Alan Dale, Watkins Publishing, 2006, pg. 178-179

This resonates so true with this story, The Poky Little Puppy.

This is further reinforced in General Choi Hong Hi's (1918-2002)¹ Jungshin Sooyang. He lists, according to Lao Tzu's influences (based primarily on the Tao Teh Ching, verse 38)  four types of societies or methods of governing, or simply ways of dealing with other people. 1) The Ideal Society, 2) The Moral Society, 3) the Legalistic Society, and 4) the 'corrupt' Society.

"Everyone of us, as a social being, desires to live in a free and peaceful society. At the same time, it is our obligation to build such a society for the people.
"An ideal society, according to Lao-Tzu, is one in which the ruler is of such high moral character that he can rule naturally, not by interference or fear but by appealing to the good nature of his people, who by merely doing their duty can live freely in peace without fear and anxiety 

"Next, a moral society is one in which the people admire and praise their ruler in gratitude for his love and the benign disposition he bears toward his people. 

"Thirdly there is a "legalistic society in which the ruler, because he lacks the moral authority, resorts to various laws to govern his people, who in turn obey because they fear the retribution that the violation of these laws will bring." Under these circumstances, the ruler loses touch with his people. 

"Finally the worst kind of society is that in which the ruler, through deception and trickery, misuses his legal authority to further his personal ambitions and imposes his rule upon his people by force as he deems necessary. In such a society, the ruler is despised and hated by his people and eventually invites not only his own downfall but with him the downfall of the people and the country."

Initially in this story, we see the mother functioning ('governing') within the “Legalistic Society” form, hoping and relying on the puppies' fear of punishment. But by the end of the story we see the mother evolve and grow towards the second higher form. That of “Moral Society”).

I think the fact that this children's story is teaching wisdom from an Eastern tradition - to our Western worldview - strikes us as confusing and difficult to understand. We try to make it fit into our own preconceived beliefs and values. We try to hammer a square peg into a round hole and it simply doesn't fit.

Although it may have taken me the better part of 40 years to finally understand the moral of this children's tale, I think I've finally got it. At least that's my take on it.

And I'm happy to say - regardless of only recently figuring this story out - my wife and I, as parents of two wonderful children, have raised them this way; with more focus on rewarding good or outstanding behaviour, and minimalizing punishment for poor or bad behaviour... maybe that's why my children are wonderful.






1 Creator and Founder of Traditional Taekwon-do

"Evolution's Purpose" by Steve McIntosh; Commentary and Review

(By Guest Writer - Michel Weatherall)

I think a point that is made in this book should be pronounced early on; That a certain 'branch' of science - mechanistic materialism - be identified as a 'belief' is important.

"In a world that was once dominated by traditional consciousness and state-sponsored religious political authority, mechanistic materialism served as the protective shell out of which the "chick" of science could be born. But now the chick is hatched and science has become the new politically empowered authority on the truth. And this has resulted in the accompanying metaphysics of scientism becoming a new kind of state-sponsored belief system, used by materialists as a quasi-religious power base in academia and the mainstream media.   

"Robert Wesson observes: "Darwinism became the banner for those who would overthrow what they saw as an irrational, superstitious view of human origins... The theory of evolution became the focus of the confrontation of science and religion" 

"However, as a result of their ongoing battle with Christian fundamentalists, ironically, many scholars of evolution have themselves become "Darwinian fundamentalists." pgs 36-37

A point successfully made was the analogy of humanity's search for truth being like a 3-legged stool. Its legs being Science, Philosophy, and Spirituality (Religion). The simple fact that there are 'areas' where science cannot (and should not) function, is important.

"...this is especially important within the subject of evolution, where science and philosophy are often intertwined. While the empirical facts of evolutionary science cannot stand alone without some kind of philosophical frame, we do not have to accept materialism as the only philosophy compatible with these facts." pg. 144

An equally important point is that Science's materialism (neo-Darwinism) is based upon some sort of metaphysics - Belief.

"The faith that all things can be attributed to analyzable material causation is, in the end, only a faith like more candid faiths. The contention that reality consists of only material particles and their modes of interaction is not even a clear-cut theory... But are the laws of nature not real? Are mathematical theorems real? Are patterns real? Are thought and consciousness? It is paradoxical to deny their essentially  for science could not exist without them." pgs. 36-37

To return to the analogy of the three-legged stool, a methodology of a mechanistic materialism science only is a defective system with great shortcomings.

What is this stool's third leg, Spirituality?

"What is "spirit"? Well, to define something is to objectify it, and whatever spirit is, it is certainly not an object. But even though it cannot be adequately defined, this does not mean that spirit is obscure, indefinite, or wholly subjective." pg. 215

~

In the first half of this book Steve McIntosh tends to seemingly ramble on numerous tangents to prove some sort of point he feels necessary. Making an ambiguous statement peppered with large words; not so much to communicate simply his abstract ideas better, but seemingly to appear more academic. These statements are near without fail followed by another sentence beginning with "In others words..." only to make another ambiguous statement, again peppered with more unhelpful large words.

This author's writing style  made this entire book a brutally difficult read. What this book needs is a healthy dose of plain - simple - language.

It is possible that this book's target audience is a highly educated and academic group of professors and doctorates. Maybe the book is simply over my head. I'm not sure who exactly this book's target audience is meant to be.

What I do like about the premise of "Evolution's Purpose" is that not only does he identify the various forms of Evolution (it's not all Darwinism), more importantly, he believes they are all one in the same process.
Big Bang - Cosmological Evolution - Chemical Evolution - Biological Evolution - Pychosocial Evolution (Cultural Evolution).

He introduces Emergence Theory to (briefly) explain certain leaps and bounds in the Evolutionary process. (ie like how a primordial chemical soup could produce life. Like when hydrogen and oxygen are correctly combined [water] a gestalt-like feature emerges: surface tension) as opposed to Intelligent Design's Irreducible Complexity. However, like so many interesting ideas and topics presented in this book, I felt Emergence Theory wasn't expanded upon enough.

He seems to become distracted and fragmented however as he progresses into Pychosocial Evolution.
He speaks of Evolution from the Physiosphere to a Biosphere, to eventually a Noosphere. I can only assume by the Noosphere he means the evolution of culture.

Within this cultural evolution he repeatedly refers to stages or worldviews within.
Pre-traditional, Traditional, Modern, Postmodern, and what he predicts will be the new Evolutionary Worldview, seeing these as a Hagel-like progression of Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis.

In some sort of confused way he seems to link psychosocial evolution, this Noosphere, numerous syntheses, and cultural worldviews by the values of Truth and Beauty, and ultimately, Goodness. Although I believe he is right, with all of his pages of word weaving and mental  meanderings, I don't believe he successfully makes his point. I don't think the reader should be forced to decipher the author's ideas, where it is the author's job to successfully and clearly communicate his own concepts and ideas. He seems to rely on complicated repetition.

~

It isn't until the second half of the book do we begin to see where he is going with his ideas.

An interesting and important point is that Purpose is not synonymous with following a Plan or blueprint, or Preplanned - which would necessarily invoke Intelligent Design.

"...the very fact of the instrumental use proves the purpose - as life depends on and used matter, matter becomes endowed with a new form of purpose, and as our human minds depend on and use our animal bodies, we likewise add purpose to life." pg. 156

 This is explained in much better detail with introduction and use of "holonic ecology", or the theory of holons, which basically creates a symbiotic relationship between their instrumental value and their intrinsic value.

In the final quarter of the book he crosses over from the subject of Philosophy into the realm of Spirituality and theology, even being so brave as to tackle the topic of suffering. (pg. 162)

He rounds out this 'section' of spirituality with what he calls, ten tenets of evolutionary theology:

1. Our evolving universe had a distinct and dramatic beginning. This original emergence or emanation resulted from a primal cause - a primordial creative act.
2. This cause or creative act that initiated the universe can best be conceived as an "uncaused cause", or first cause.
3. The first cause is necessarily prior to and transcendent of time, space, energy, matter, and evolution itself.
4. Because the first cause transcends the finite universe, it can be conceived as being infinite, eternal, and universal. In other words, the first cause is changeless and perfect. Thus, prior to the beginning of evolution, the universe as first cause was in a state of existential perfection.
5. The creative act that brought forth the finite universe can be partially understood as an act of separation, subtraction, or kenosis, wherein perfection is removed from a part of the universe, which nevertheless remains within the encompassing container of existential perfection.
6.  The evolving universe that results from this creative act unfolds according to a self-similar pattern, process, and technique of dialectical development. And the pattern's self-similar structure suggests that this same pattern also configures the ongoing creative process of the universe as a whole.
7. From this we can hypothesize that the thesis of existential perfection is followed and partially negated by the antithesis of the finite universe, and that from the inherent tension of this thesis and antithesis, a synthesis is arising, which we recognize as evolution.
8. This synthesis emerges with life and matures through the psychosocial domain of evolution, herein free will creatures increasingly develop toward perfect through widening realizations of value  This gradual realization of perfection is achieved through the experience and creation of beauty, truth, and goodness, and related sub-values.
9. The emerging synthesis of evolution adds to the thesis of existential perfection the experience of becoming perfect - freely and creatively. The antithesis of the finite universe is thus used as the domain wherein experiential perfection is achieved through dialectical evolution.
10. This evolutionary theology illuminates the instrumental purpose of the noosphere, helps explain the existence of evil and suffering, and connects the intrinsic purpose of each person with the intrinsic purpose of the universe's first cause. 

Now in all fairness, he spends the next 13 pages expanding and better explains these 10 tenets. What is interesting is that - as suspiciously vague as some of these points might sound - they are not attempting a 'bait-and-switch' tactic. He is not secretly selling God or theism, acknowledging "even if we accept a nontemporal first cause as the most plausible account of the big band, this does not necessarily lead directly to theism; the concept of a first cause could turn out to be more of a principle than a personality, and is thus compatible with a variety of nontheistic notions regarding creativity in the cosmos  A first cause can also fit in with Hindu ideas of an impersonal Brahman, and even with some Buddhist conceptions of nondual emptiness." (pg. 171). (Sounds like the position I hold from "Most High God" Part II: Highest State and ...nothing...).

The entire process of evolution (Physiosphere, Biosphere, and Noosphere) proceeds through a process of thesis + antithesis = synthesis, including (interesting enough) the big band and creation of time-space itself. This insight would seem to echo the wisdom of Lao Tzu's Tao Teh Ching's verse 42:

"Tao gave birth to One,One gave birth to Two,Two gave birth to Three,Three gave birth to all the myriads things of the universe".

When further explaining tenets 5 and 6 he touches upon the potential Jewish Kabbalistic mysticism as well. What impressed me the most of these ten tenets are their scientific accuracy as well as their spiritual flexibility. This is not a new form of belief that sets out to replace science. This is a spirituality that transcends science. Something I think we need more of in this world. He describes what an evolved form of spirituality might look like.

"...evolutionary spirituality is not simply a new kind of religion... evolutionary spirituality begins with the recognition that religions or spiritual paths are not static institutions, but rather distinct trajectories of ongoing development with consciousness and culture." pg.218

I think this is a healthy perspective. Although most religious fundamentalists maintain otherwise, the simple fact of the matter is that religions are fluid. They change and evolve over time. There is truly no such thing as the exclusivity and claims for only "one true way". This silliness must be abandoned.

~

And finally, in chapter 9 he enters into the pragmatic world of the future of culture, ecology  sustainable economy, and short & long-term politics.

In conclusion this book has many extremely far reaching ideas touching upon topics seemingly unrelated, but distinctly sharing commonalities. However, I wish it was better written and significantly less academic and 'technical' for I fear the average reader won't make it much past the half-way point. Which would be a shame, because the great insights, observations, and wisdom would be lost.







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.

"The Enoch Factor", by Steve McSwain

(By Guest Blogger - Michel Weatherall)

The Church has lost touch with it's founder, having embraced a religion about Jesus, rather than the religion of Jesus. “The Way” was the religion of Jesus. The later religion about Jesus is what we know today as Christianity.

The Christian Church has become the modern day equivalent of the legalistic and rule-orientated Pharisees of Jesus' day. “Believers are told what to think, how to believe, and the way to live. Furthermore, most church leaders disregard the fact that their founder repudiated the religious leaders of his day for doing this to the followers of Judaism”. (pg.45)

One startling fact is that “in the last ten years... it is estimate that Christian churches have spent more than $ 100 billion on buildings and facilities. In that same time, more than 400,000,000 people have died of hunger on this planet”. pg.46

What would Jesus do?

The future of the Christian Church, with its members leaving in droves, is definitely in question. Its death is near inevitable.

Unless we can collectively abandon our desperate ego-driving pretension of spiritual certainty, Humanity's future itself is also in question. Steve McSwain words echo that of the Dalai Lama. (“Until there is peace among the religions of the world, there will be no peace in the world”).

I like nearly everything Steve McSwain has to say. I especially like the fact that “The Enoch Factor” isn't attempting to re-market or repackage the old stagnant religion of Christianity; to identify the demise of the modern day church, yet selling its same flawed values.

Truth be known, I believe this direction is the only choice that has any hope for a future – not just Christianity's, but all of us.

His concepts are simple, truthful, yet truly revolutionary.

Funny that word, Revolutionary. Over that past 2 years I must have reviewed at least 5 books to make that claim. None of them were true. “The Enoch Factor” doesn't make that claim of itself, but it most definitely is revolutionary.

His take on certain issues are refreshing, like a breath of fresh air. Better! They're more like a spring breeze that cleans out the stagnant mold and damp of an over-long winter.

His take on the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve is close if not identical to Rob Bell's (“Velvet Elvis”). He addresses, or clearly defines, what Sin is, or might be. "The word sin means "to miss the mark"... Sin actually means "to miss who you are" - who you really are. It is to be lost in the illusion that you are your ego". (pg. 96). Although he doesn't come out and say it, it is clear Original Sin is abandoned. (pg. 167).He would seem to agree with LinYutang's “The Importance of Living” in that man was never meant to live forever. That death is not punishment for Sin.

"Salvation as it is called in the Christian tradition, or Enlightenment, as in Eastern traditions, is the opening of your spiritual eyes" (pg. 133).
We can begin seeing Jesus' Way as having an unofficial Buddhist take, with Salvation resembling and striving to attain the perpetual "Now", with escape from the regrets of the past and the anxiety of the future. 

Sin, Creationism, Salvation; McSwain's underlying point isn't to argue and debate these beliefs. His underlying point is our collective freedom from sin, our escape from Ego.

This book should force Christianity to question our man-made religion about Jesus, and much more importantly, begin our exploration of the religion of Jesus. Everything we believe we know and understand can be viewed anew.

This book isn't about Christianity. This book has further reaching ambitions. The author himself admits that he must tell the story through his own medium; his own culture and that is a Christian one. But do not be mistaken. This book isn't exclusively about Christianity. This book is about Humanity itself. It seeks a larger, more encompassing truth and has the open mindedness, tolerance, and compassion to succeed.

The book is littered with various quotes from sources that cannot be called anything but pluralistic.

The Buddha, Krishna, Lao Tzu, Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Jung, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Einstein, Sagan, atheists, singers, presidents, philosophers, theologians, authors. He truly embraces the idea of seeking out truth and wisdom wherever you find it.

In chapter 9 Steve McSwain tells the story of the death of his father and its spiritual consequences for him. This story resonated with me personally as I could relate to the time surrounding my mother's death 26 years ago. This book is difficult to read 'objectively' – in the sense of a 3^rd party reading, 'analyzing', and reviewing. It makes contact in an up-close-and-personal sort of way.

The entire of chapter 8 was most intriguing to me – so much so that I most definitely need to revisit, reread, and study it in much better detail. A near instructional guide to put you on your way to truly purging sin – and even more importantly - Ego.

At the risk of coming off sounding egotistical, this book gave me a great amount of confirmation in my non-institutional spirituality; to the point were I am forced to seriously consider myself – if not “awakened” to used the author's terms - then well on my way.

I would recommend this book for anyone that I know.
5 out of 5 Stars!

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.

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.