A Symbiotic God?

This thought has been on my mind for quite some time now.

It really isn't a full blown idea or concept. Just a half-formed 'suspicion'...

...that God may be just as 'dependent' on us as we are on "Him".

...a sort of byproduct of humanity's existence... or, possibly the fruition of man's consciousness... No, not just an abstract concept we've imagined ... yes, transcendent but not subservient.

Not a parasitic God but a symbiotic one. We, the human species (and possibly all life beyond us) are just as interlinked and dependent on this entity.

...some sort of hybrid betwixt an anthropomorphic theistic deity and an amorphous non-theistic 'entity', potentially like the Tao.

Is this to suggest that we are all gods ourselves? Not in the sense that we are each individually gods, but possibly that the one singular God is all of us collectively.

I don't really like approaching this issue from this angle. I'd rather approach it like this; Imagine if humanity didn't exist – became extinct. So too would God. ... even this isn't really going where my mind's wandering, because it creates a conundrum. (What about the time of creation, before man existed? But what I'm approaching is a sort of 'created' God that becomes extra-temporal...it doesn't really create a conundrum, but rather a paradox).

We are (each other and God included) intrinsically and necessarily connected. There is no (absolutely no) separating man from God.

I can't personally see any other way it could be.
The idea of a God that is omnibenevolent, (is Love itself), omnipotent, and has 'person-hood' simply must be abandoned. God cannot be these three things simultaneously.

Review of Thomas Jay Oord's "The Nature of Love: a Theology

(By Guest Blogger - Michel Weatherall)

”The God whose nature does not include love for the world is a God whose love for creation is capricious.” pg. 110

Thomas Jay Oord doesn't shy away from a challenge in this new book. In The Nature of Love: a Theology, he is attempting to tackle the theological problem of evil and what those implications are for God.

This is going to be difficult for me to write. Normally, when reading a book I am going to review, I have a loose method. (I am a creature of habit). I carry a hi-liter marker with me, and as something catches my attention, I will hi-lite that phrase, sentence, or paragraph, dog-ear the page, and continue reading.

Once done the book, I will habitually sit outside in my gazebo (usually just before the sun rises) and go through my hi-lited points and dog-eared pages. Occasionally some hi-lited points will be of personal interest rather than for the review.

I fear this book will, quite literally, left my method broken.

I had found myself left with as many hi-lited notes of personal interest as reminders for this review. I had began scribbling notes in pen in the margins and even debated using up to three different colours of hi-liters! So many dog-eared pages had I left that I used one of my daughter's hair elastics to keep the book shut.

This book clearly would greatly lend itself to a group study and discussion. How the author contained his (new?) theory – the Essential Kenosis Theology – which addresses the problem of evil, within a small book of about 157 pages is nothing less than incredible.

This book touches upon something close to my heart, as I have struggled and wrestled through tears and heartache with the question of an omnipotent Deity who either creates Evil Himself, allows Evil to co-exist, or indifferently turns a blind eye. My personal quest has led me into the distant past to Creation itself searching for answers, as has Thomas Jay Oord, who dedicates a fair amount of ink into the latter part of the book. He contrasts God as outside of Time (timeless) with God as fully immersed in Time (time-full). He also seriously questions God's need of Creation and asks who must god truly love?

Thomas Jay Oord has even provided some material that forces me to revisit and reevaluate certain conclusions I have already concluded!

”Essential Kenosis theology not only solves the theoretical aspect of the problem of evil. It also resolves the question of why a loving God would not guarantee the fair distribution of goods to the poor and needy. It solves the problem of why a loving God would allow errant and ambiguous revelation, rather than making crystal-clear the information apparently necessary for full salvation.” pg. 126

I have questioned this issue of ”errant and ambiguous revelation” in A Pluralistic Sophia (which I must now, at least to some degree, revisit).

However, it is also at this point where we begin to see some minor tell-tale signs of problems.

This book; this Essential Kenosis Theology theory, is based upon, as the author himself puts it, the biblical witness. Ambiguous and less than crystal-clear revelation. Although I believe Thomas Jay Oord is in all likelihood referring to other holy script, it never-the-less should apply to the bible also. It explains the possibility of errant, conflicts, and inconsistencies of the bible itself. So it “allows” for ”errant and ambiguous revelation” yet rests upon the authority of the biblical witness. That's problematic. (And on a side note, I would very much like to know what does “full salvation” and its implications – a lack of salvation – mean from a necessarily all loving God).

The Essential Kenosis Theology, as presented in this book, goes a long way in forwarding my understanding of addressing the problem of evil in this world. However, I believe it isn't a “whole”, complete, or finalized theology. It is on page 134 that it broke down for me:

”...a biblically oriented doctrine of creation... [should]... reject theories of creation that imply God initially created our universe from preexisting materials God did not create but “happened upon” or “found at hand”.”

“When the Genesis writer first mentions God's creative activity, he describes God creating from something rather than nothing”.

Here is a problem. Either we run with the “biblical witness” as authoritative, or we do not. We cannot have it both ways.

If you are going to broach the issue of initial creation (which the author has) you need to address it one way or another. Not leave it in a confused and ambiguous state and then attempt to sidestep it altogether, providing a half-baked answer like,

"...sharing power and asking creation to participate in the creative process"; co-creating alongside God and continuously creating from the created. Basically stating the (answer to this problem) is the ”everlasting God has everlastingly been creating from that which God previously created. In each moment of God's everlasting life, God creates something new from what God created in the past. God's creating has always been occurring in the past and will always occur in the future” (pg. 136).

But all this aside, there is a wellspring of refreshing ideas presented in the book contrasted alongside older and more traditional ones. I would say it is a relativity heavy read but one worth the while all the same.

Review of Fall to Grace: A Revolution of God, Self, and Society, by Jay Bakker

Try as I might, I could not find an appropriate place to segue two outstanding quotes into this review. So, I'll open by simply listing them:

“We are punished by our sins, not for them”. pg. 1

“…what’s more important than believing in life after death is believing is life before death”. pg. 157

~

One of the most refreshing and striking points I’ve noticed with Jay Bakker’s book, “Fall to Grace: A Revolution of God, Self, and Society” is that he doesn’t avoid or shy away from the fact that there are issues, conflicts, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the bible, while maintaining the fact that the bible is still extremely important and valuable. Not only is this something I personally wholeheartedly agree with, it is also an honest and respectful position.

We are told this is a book about Grace; Revolutionary Grace!
But sort of on a side note, I am left wondering how revolutionary Jay Bakker’s grace really is.
In the introduction, he defines Grace as follows:

“Grace is so poorly understood that it’s worth defining right up front. Grace literally means ‘unmerited favor’. It is the idea that we receive salvation as a gift from God through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Not as something we’ve earned”. pg. xi

Fair enough! I’ve no problem with this definition. I know many Christians who would happily cite this, or very similar definitions of Grace, yet only upon the acceptance of Christ. (And isn’t that in itself a criteria? Wouldn’t this become a required check mark?)

A little ways on he speaks of Robert Wright’s book, “The Evolution of God” mentioning that “…there’s a clear evolution in our descriptions of God – a trajectory that points inexorably from judgment and punishment in the distant past through time towards forgiveness and all-encompassing love… That’s right: Our understanding of God (though not God Himself) changes over time.” pg. 72 (another book that I’ve read and enjoyed), suggesting – I should think – that understandings must be subject to growth and change. Can the above definition of grace be capable of evolving and growth?

Although nowhere does Jay Bakker say that this definition of Grace is solely dependent upon acceptance of Christ, or even suggest it, it is a question of curiosity that remains and concerns me. (I would very much like to directly ask Jay Bakker this question should the opportunity present itself. And if you’re reading this review Jay, please feel free to contact or email me!)

I wonder this because one minor theme that seems to follow throughout this book is why believers and non-believers alike, stay away (or are driven away) from church. Although the question is not directly asked, it is glazed over and assumed that church needs and/or deserves to be saved through some sort of revolutionary revival. As I understand unconditional Grace, should we truly grasp and live it out, there would cease to be a need or dependency on church (… and church is not necessity for community, btw).

~

I’ve read, re-read, and then re-read again the jacket and sleeve of this book, looking for some sort of hint or indication as to this book’s real topic matter and I have found disappointingly nothing of the sort. The book is toted and sold as exploring the topic of Grace; Revolutionary Grace!; but ultimately it is about acceptance of homosexuality.

Now, please, my gentle reader, don’t misunderstand me. I have no problem with homosexuals. Like Jay Bakker, I do not consider it a sin. Nor do I believe they should be discriminated against or ostracized from their churches or religion of their choice, or in society in general. I do not have issues with people championing this cause nor do I have issues with reading books that champion their cause. However, I do like to be free to make this choice, which this book did not have to grace of permit me.

I cannot help but wonder if Jay Bakker just didn’t quite purge the Evangelical habit of bait-and-switch out of his methodology. His topic matter is clearly gay Christian rights but I’ve yet to hear this stated in any sort of synopsis, summary, or even made mention of the book’s jacket cover. Although I personally embrace and share his concept and interpretation of how open and free Grace is, I don’t believe this is really the direction the book is moving in, and I can’t help but feel duped; lied to even, which left a very bad taste in my mouth.

And finally, like all my book reviews, I like asking the question, who is this book’s target audience?

Well, for the Conservative mainstream Christian, I’m sure they will dismiss this book out-of-hand.

For the more liberal Christians I’m sure they’d find the reading interesting, but not without trepidation and hesitancy.

It will most definitely appeal to the more extreme liberal Christians – the ‘fringe-dwellers’ – but unfortunately, I’m not convinced this group has the power or authority to instigate the necessary changes.

To the non-Christian yet spiritually-minded, I am convinced they’d find a healthy amount of common ground, but there’s a reason why non-Christian-spiritually-minded- people are non-Christian… and I fear Jay Bakker is still – consciously or not – attempting to draw in converts and disciples (admittedly of a very different nature). He is still ultimately proselyting, and whether intentional or not, this will only serve to further divide the church.

Is Jay Bakker right about the absolute unconditional nature of Grace? Yes.

Is this a message that can change the world, break down racial, political, and religious barriers, and even heal and offer salus to this world? Yes, most definitely!

However, it is with a heavy heart that I regretfully say, I feel this is a book without an audience. I hope I am wrong. (God knows, it wouldn’t be the first time).

Is Jay Bakker’s “Fall to Grace” worth the read? I would recommend that it is

The Theological Problem of Worms

It was early in the afternoon the day I went for a walk around my neighbourhood. It had rained heavily during the night and early morning, but the sun was out and shining in its full force. The freshness after a good rainfall had now dried up and that scent of healthy moist earth along with it. Now all I came across was the shriveled bodies of hundreds of worms on the pavement; lifeless dried out husks.

As my eyes were drawn to their bodies I noticed they didn't count in the hundreds, but more like in the thousands. The road was absolutely covered with them.

What a horrible existence. What a horrible life.

Designed to live and thrive beneath the earth's surface, in the soil; warm and safe. But when the water comes; when the rain falls, they are faced with a terrible decision. Stay in their burrows and drown, or escape to the surface making themselves vulnerable to giant-sized predators. (Although a Red-breasted Robin isn't particularly threatening to us, to a worm they're a monstrosity). Then they must hope to time their entrance into their subterranean safety after the water's subsided but before the sun dries them to death.

Why would a loving God create worms? I can completely understand the need and function worms perform. They are a necessity. But why this horrific choice between drowning and monstrous hunters?

...but I guess this isn't really an important theological question, is it? After all, they're only worms, right?

~

I can remember the World Trade Center falling in 2001. we still struggle and reel with questions like why? How could so many innocent people, people just like you and me, fall victim to a crime like this?

I can remember when the Tsunami hit India in 2004.
We never really ever got an accurate body count but they estimated somewhere around 200,000 people were lost. Swept away. Whole and entire islands, simply gone.




...How can a loving God allow these things to happen? Most especially if we believe nothing in this world happens without God's permission or direction.

Please don't think I am making light of these horrific events. But they seem to put the blight of the common everyday worm to shame. But you see, the theological problem with worms is the exact same theological problem we face and question.

I partially believe the problem lies in the fact that we presume God plays favourites towards us humans. Not only that, but we presume God must absolutely be anthropomorphic. “He” is a god of us human beings.

I realize these thoughts and views are difficult. But this is the same God who has created worms as well as humans... the same God who loves us both.

The theological problem of worms is our theological problem.
I believe – at least in part – the answer to these problems lies within out anthropomorphic views (or maybe insistence) of God's nature. Maybe even our belief that God must be personal. Or even a 'person' as we understand the term. (Maybe God is significantly more akin to the idea of what the Tao is?)


To me, I have only come across 3 possible explanations. Atheism, Deism, or Gnosticism. Little else would seem to explain this theological problem of worms.

Fear or Wisdom?

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 (of the father-son kind) "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.

Attempting to be something to appease some one, be that someone a social group, congregation, priest or pastor, or even 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.

So, what then becomes of wisdom?

Learning how to think rather than what to think. Education over Indoctrination; but not simply the collection and acquisition of Knowledge and Data – that's rote – not much different than indoctrination – but its benevolent, practical, and relational application; Wisdom.

Questioning is not sinful.

Thinking is not being 'Worldly'.

Doubt is not the absence of Faith, but a necessary and healthy composite of it.

(The arrogance needed to deny doubt is simply amazing!)

'From caring comes courage'. We might add that from it also comes wisdom. It's rather significant, we think, that those who have no compassion have no wisdom. Knowledge, yes; cleverness, maybe; wisdom, no. A clever mind is not a heart. Knowledge doesn't really care. Wisdom does”. The Tao of Pooh, by Benjamin Hoff

Mentors, Protégés, & Printers

”The success of the reformers was due in large part to the invention of the printing press, which not only helped to propagate the new ideas but also changed people's relationship to the text”.“The Case for God”, Karen Armstrong, pg. 171

”Printing helped to secularize the relationship of the reader to the truth that he was trying to acquire. In the past, the Church had – to an extent – been able to supervise the flow of ideas and information, but the proliferation of books and pamphlets after the middle of the sixteenth century made this censorship far more difficult. As the printed book began to replace oral methods of communication, the information it provided was depersonalized and, perhaps, became more fixed and less flexible than in the old days, when truth had developed in dynamic relation between master and pupil”. “The Case for God”, Karen Armstrong, pg. 172

Outside of the lack of control (which in and of itself isn't necessarily bad) it dehumanized the process; the human relationship of mentor-protégé was removed.

And as the technology advanced, the printed page itself became an icon of precision and exactitude, even shaping a certain mental outlook. A precursor to science. This cold Knowledge was more of a definite call sign of Modernity itself.

Macleans Magazine had listed the top 10 inventions of all time a few years back. The printing press made the list (as I believe it should). The Internet also made this list. Not everyone agreed however. The dissenters had claimed that the Internet didn't actually do anything new; it only did the same things but faster.

I think, at least certain aspects of the Internet did to the Postmodern day what the printing press did for the Reformation's Modernity.

Even less control, Anyone and everyone has their soapbox to preach from (and this most definitely includes this blog! Have you ever asked yourself what qualifications I do or do not have?)

The concept of Library and (real) Research has been near obliterated. The personal relationship of the Mentor and Protégé has been completely removed.
...maybe not removed; replaced possibly. With the advent of the printing press and the depersonalized exchange of information (data?) and zeal for Knowledge of Modernity, I believe what was lost via the removed of the human mentor-protégé relationship was Wisdom. And Wisdom cannot be learn from a book.

I very much like how The Tao of Pooh (Benjamin Hoff) makes the distinction between knowledge and wisdom.

”'From caring comes courage'. We might add that from it also comes wisdom. It's rather significant, we think, that those who have no compassion have no wisdom. Knowledge, yes; cleverness, maybe; wisdom, no. A clever mind is not a heart. Knowledge doesn't really care. Wisdom does”.

Now this is something the Internet, blog sites like this one and others, discussion forums and the like differ from. Although nothing is immune to the depersonalization of Knowledge over Wisdom, these environments are relational and interactive.

The nature of our Knowledge has taken a step back towards Wisdom.

Where the printing press may have done away with the Mentor-Protégé system of learning, the Internet has – at least potentially – replaced it with a different system. Discussion, debate, argument even. The all powerful authority of the institution has been all but removed. Although there are challenges and pitfall present, if nothing else we have at least moved towards a people-focused paradigm again; we have re-embraced Relationship, even if it is in a imaginary cyberspace sort of way. (And please remember, Imagination and Make-believe are not the same things).

The “M” in Morality.

My dictionary defines the word “Morality” as follows:

The degree of conformity of an idea, practice, etc., to moral principles. Right moral conduct.

I realize one of the most obvious questions that should strike us is the question of whose ideas or whose moral principles?

But that isn't the point that stays with me.
The point that jumps off the page to me is the simple fact that this whole confusing issues of morality and ethics is simply a byproduct of humanity being gregarious. We are an extremely social animal. In fact, I might even debate whether we could live (I deliberately chose the word live and not survive) in total and prolonged isolation. My point being, from a certain point of view, we are not really individuals.

Ethics, Morality, right and wrong; these things are of absolutely no value to a creature who does not depend on anything other than itself. Unfortunately for the human race, this does not apply.

So, morality is what? Is it the glue that binds us into this necessary social conglomerate? Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that it is the conglomerate itself? Either way, it provides the necessities of life.

Now, and only now, do we come to that first thought to be most obvious question; Whose ideas and whose moral principles?

~

I prefer not to use the term “religion” for the simple reason that it can – to some people's definitions – be misleading. I would rather use the term “Belief-System”. For many “religion” is strictly reserved for the traditional organized religions of the world; many of which would include a belief in a supernatural deity or deities.

A “Belief-System” is a bit more broader. It would include Agnosticism and Atheism, to name a few. A Belief-System does not necessitate moral belief in deity, but yet an adherent to a given Belief-System is still vulnerable to the disease of religiosity; and that is the defining difference (or possibly similarity) between the two. Religions would fall under the umbrella of Belief-Systems.
When the question is asked, ”Whose ideas and whose moral principles?” the answer is a Belief-System's

~

The Belief-System that is the “M” in morality, that governs society's morality itself, ultimately controls the very nature of that society's life. No, I don't mean the society's way of life. I mean life itself. The ability to live. (And again, I deliberately chose the word live and not survive).

Every religion, every Belief-System that I can think of has taken it upon themselves that this – that becoming the “M” in morality – is their very purpose, their goal. Whether it is in reaction to another's religion or belief-system or morality or through a direct statement of belief.

But at the end of the day, regardless of what we are told, Religions and Belief-Systems are not about morality, are they?… it is a subtle and elusive battle for supremacy, isn't it? It is about control. Whether we like it or not it is about control. The real issue becomes if control is a deliberate focus or simply a byproduct of morality. Whether said given Belief-System is about governance or engineering; are they focused on meeting the needs of their population or shaping the needs of their population?

... Let's not get side tracked here. Although it may sound like I am speaking of government, I am not. (Although a government could fall under the umbrella term of a "Belief-System").

We all adhere and follow some sort of Belief-System. Some of us can name and clearly identify it. Others may not so easily do so. Some of us may claim to be one thing but in truth be another. Some ruling Belief-Systems do not belong in the realm of the more common and traditional ones. Some may not even as of yet have a title. Some (as I suspect, many) are a sort of hybrid synthesis. Some are within contantly growing and evolving systems. Some are trapped within prison-systems incapable of growth. None of us are outside of a Belief-System. We'd no longer be alive if we were. (And there are poor souls who exist in this state also).

I think a few important questions we need to ask ourselves is whether we can clearly identify what and which Belief-System we belong to. Another is to question our Belief-System itself. Is it focused on being our society's, our culture's, our sub-culture's engineer? ...or the more humbling roll of its maintainer?

Is everything it sees in dichotic terms? Is everything either with it or against it? How does it view different or other perspectives and opinions? Does it demonize disagreeing or dissenting views as Evil? I should rather think this would be a warning sign.

Does it allow one's spiritual growth to exceed itself? (And I do believe Atheists have a spiritual aspect, btw). Or does it cripple one's ability to grow, maintaining its subjects as prisoners?

More importantly, can it be questioned?

Where do you belong?

Tattoo: Solace In Pain

I have been questioned by some as to why I wear tattoos.

All of my tattoos have deeply personal and spiritual significance. Each has a story to tell.

Our greatest moments of growth are often during our most painful experiences. The only difference between myself and the "un-inked" is that I wear my scars on my sleeve; literally on my skin.

But this tattoo is a summation of my 'journey' and not such a simple story to explain.

"The highest form of goodness is like water.
Water knows how to benefit all things without striving with them; nourishing life effortlessly.
It stays in places loathed by all men. Flowing without prejudice
to the lowliest places. Therefore, it comes near the Tao".

Excerpt from Tao Te Ching, verse 8, by Lao Tzu

Although both goodness and badness coexist, it is goodness that flows effortlessly like water, because it is goodness that is more at the core of nature.
I see this 'action' of goodness as the Taoist sees Wu Wei.
 
Wu Wei literally means 'without action', but often meaning 'action without action', or 'effortlessly doing'. As planets revolve around the sun, they "do" this revolving, but without "doing" it; or as trees grow, they "do", but without "doing".

Goodness, like water, is similar to a valley. All surrounding water naturally flows towards this depression, eventually forming a reservoir; rivers running and flowing into a pond, lake, sea, or ocean, and it is the ocean that is by far and away one of the most powerful forces I have personally ever experienced – whether placid and at rest, or during violent storms.

This passiveness strikes me as more of the Yin; the feminine, inaction so to speak. Nature - as Man - is innately good. Not Fallen, not corrupt, not depraved.

There is no need for me to abandon my cultural references to the bible and/or the book of Genesis either. Outside of the option of allowing for a metaphor rather than a literal historical story, there are other interpretations with this same source material (the book of Genesis) that do not necessitate Original Sin, the Fall of Man, or Total (or even partial) Depravity. For further reading see Gnostique: Genesis Reinterpreted.

If we are honest with ourselves, we can never know which is ultimately true. Innately good, or depraved. I prefer to believe Man is innately good, not 'fallen' and necessarily corrupt. The problem with choosing to believe in these Christian doctrines (the doctrine of Original Sin, or Total Depravity, or TULIP) is that, in day to day life and activities, we really shouldn't trust anybody. They're all corrupt and out to screw me. Now that is a way of life and not a very good one.

I choose to live my life trusting people know right from wrong, and in the most part, attempting to do good. Whether it's correct or incorrect I think choosing to see people as innately good is a better and more respectful way of living life. And if nothing else, at least I stand a chance of being a good example. (Jungshin Sooyang). Ultimately with goals of making a better world.

...thus the water in the tattoo.
 
~~
 
The fifth oath in Taekwon-do is “I shall build a more peaceful world”.

Easier said than done. The question is, how do I even attempt to accomplish this?

"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".

Excerpt from Tao Te Ching, verse 42, by Lao Tzu

This basically says that Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. But this in itself is somewhat useless. I like calling this the Purple Plasticine Problem.

 In the Purple Plasticine Problem, I have a piece of red plasticine in one hand and a piece of blue plasticine in the other. I mix them and work them into each other. In the end, I end up with a large piece of purple plasticine. Few would argue this point. However, it means little by itself. ( Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis).

  So, let's look at it from another perspective:

I believe the sky is blue. So, I go around 'preaching' to everyone and anyone who'll listen why and how the sky is blue. (I can prove it too!) On my proselytizing journeys I stumble across another who's 'preaching' to anyone and everyone how they believe the sky is paisley.

The two of us sit down and have a nice long discussion and come to the agreed conclusion that the sky is really paisley-blue (or maybe sometimes bluish-paisley). Then, the two of us part ways spreading the word of the newly discovered Bluish-paisley sky!
The problem is, it's simply not true.
 
Okay. Let's start again.

I believe the sky is blue. So, I go around 'preaching' to everyone and anyone who'll listen why and how the sky is blue. (I can prove it too!) On my proselytizing journeys I stumble across another who's 'preaching' to anyone and everyone how they believe the sky is black (And this time they can prove it too!!)

The two of us sit down and have a long discussion and discover a previously unknown truth! Night and Day. It isn't so much that we were both right (or both wrong) but that there was a larger truth we've both missed. Then, the two of us part ways spreading the word of the newly discovered Night-and-Day!

To fundamentalists, the first example (The Paisley-blue Sky Doctrine) is why we cannot enter discussions because, ultimately, the truth - their truth – can only ever suffer being watered-down. Thesis + Antitheses = Synthesis is always a derogatory thing and a movement away from the truth. Ultimately, they are not looking for the truth, but are looking to defend the truth as they know it. This only works assuming that their position is completely and absolutely valid and true.

On the other side of the coin. The Night-and-Day Doctrine people, do not believe they know or hold the entire truth, and are searching for it, rather than defending what little they know.

I belong to the latter, my “religion” best being described as a Non-institutional Syncretist... and Syncretism is akin to wringing the truth out of 10,000 lies.

~ ~

The Dragon is Yang - action, the masculine – to the water's Yin. A good friend of my wife's is from Taipei, Taiwan, and she tells me that, in her culture, the dragon (especially as a tattoo) represents a sort of protection from harm and fear (but only on a man, because the dragon is a masculine power of Yang). However, it isn't that the dragon is tattooed on one's body that gives it its 'power' but that it exists within one's heart.

The Asian Dragon represents many things.

The dragon often symbolizes power, strength, courage, and also Indomitable spirit ("Baekjul Bulgul", in Taekwon-do):

To strive to have indomitable spirit means to have the courage to stand up for what you believe in, no matter what odds you are up against and always give 100% effort in whatever you do.

It symbolizes a protector of hidden treasures (see the above mentioned Gnostique: Genesis Reinterpreted.)

It represents a sort of freedom. ("A piece of Burlap. Strong and tightly bound, yet unbound in my liberty").
 
~ ~

Worry, anxiety; Fear of what might yet be. Fear kills the Future; murder's its potential; Slays the perpetual Now, for it is in the Now that Fear's price is paid...

Fear, my greatest enemy.
It is a battle I've fought my entire life and one I continue to wage war with.

I have battled and struggled with worry, anxiety, and Fear for far too long. One of the driving reasons why I choose to study the martial art of Taekwon-do under one of the world's Masters (Master Florin Fratean) was to at least attempt to combat this internal Fear. Through Taekwon-do I can see this desire and growth with the meanings of its belt colours:

• White is innocence
• Yellow is the fertile earth from which a plant sprouts and takes root.
• Green signifies the plant's growth.
• Blue signifies the heavens or sky towards which the plant matures into a towering tree.
• Red is the colour of the plant's first fruits. Red indicates danger. The student has sufficient skill to inflict injury to an opponent so must exercise caution and control (Guk Gi). The red also acts as a warning to opponents.
• The Black belt is the exact opposite of white. The black colour represents the student's ability to overcome Fear and triumph over Darkness.

The dragon represents this fearlessness; the confrontation and triumph over Darkness. This Darkness is not only the absence of Light, but includes triumph over ignorance. Some traditions believe that to journey past a dragon is to answer its riddles. But some things cannot be known, therefore defeating this Darkness - overcoming this ignorance - sometimes means actually embracing its unknowability. What might prove to be the most divisive issue on this planet is the question of God. A Question of Theism. I have embraced this divisive issue and have found a peace with the non-answer to this question: The Zen of Contemplating God.

~ ~

 And finally there is an important symbolism of the symbol. The imagery and symbolism of the dragon is most definitely a non-Western one. It is a step outside of what we are and what we know. It is the willingness to embrace a different mind-set; a willingness to challenge and question ourselves before anyone and anything else.

I have sat for 25 hours for this piece, with the artistic talent and company of the tattooist and artist, Milena Fusco. (And if it wasn't for her pleasant company and conversation, it would have been a brutal 25 hours). In my personal, private, and spiritual battle with darkness and Fear I have found Solace in Pain. This tattoo carries Martial Arts, Taoist, Hegelian (or is it Kantian?), and even Gnostic influences. It is not a simple thing to explain. It is a summation of sorts.

(For more see Personal Mara)

The Walking Dead

I thoroughly enjoy watching and attempting to see the shadows and echoes of our society's, our culture's concerns, fears, and beliefs in our fictions – because they are truth.

And I think this is also true with the new AMC series The Walking Dead.
If we look at the small band of survivors as the whole of society or civilization we can see two conflicting leaders.

Shane (the cop's partner), whose underlying agenda seems to be survival (not living), and potentially and more accurately, self-survival, embodying little more than an animalistic nature.
But it is within the leadership of Rick Grimes (main character) that we see the dichotomy set up.

A willingness (nay, a need) to help a potentially threatening and dangerous stranger (Merle Dixon). He is told by numerous people that Merle doesn't deserve it, to which he answers, it isn't for Merle, it's for me.

He doesn't necessarily embody the survival of the group, but survival of the very sense of morality itself. He juxtaposes to Shane's animalistic nature.

What I find so interesting about The Walking Dead is that it really is not a story about zombies, or survival or post-apocalypse world. Neither is it a reflection or commentary of consumerism like the entire George Romero's zombie-genre has been.

This story could be told as a Western with cowboys as the main characters; the zombies being replaced by the obstacles and threat of Indians and wild animals.

Ironically, The Walking Dead, really isn't about zombies at all. (And on a side note, I don't believe the title is referring to the zombies, but rather to the survivors).

It poses the question of the moral state of our society. It questions the moral fiber of our society. Are we innately altruistic and good? Or are we nothing more than savage animals in need of being kept in check?
...or maybe it's making the statement that there needs to be some sort of balance betwixt the two...

Christianity has attempted repeatedly, in times past and present, to question the moral fiber of our society and has most often times failed – or at worst been ignored. (Often taking a finger-pointing and accusational tone).

I think that may very well be the defining difference between Spiritual Growth and Religious Growth.
When we question the moral fiber of our society we are really inviting spiritual growth. However, I don't believe this is what Christianity has attempted. Religious growth questions the world around us and is an attempt to change that world into what we are. Spiritual growth questions ourselves.

...and if we are only interested in Religious growth (proselytizing) and not at all with spiritual growth, we become dead on the inside. How funny – how ironic – that the lifeless and walking dead – zombies – have succeeded where God's chosen people have failed...

Love and Control, and the God of Eden

It was decades ago when I drew this picture. Pedro is a Mexican marionette, or string puppet, and like myself, Pedro saw an inherent problem with the imagery of God. It would be much later when I realized that what I struggled with really wasn't so much God, but the Abrahamic/Monotheistic image of God.

Pedro is a marionette, a string puppet. But 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.


~


Now I realize this is only one of many potential perspectives. I also realize that this would upon initial glance appear near atheistic in nature. But this is an issue of the tension between Love and Control. And I for one do not believe these two things are compatible.

A great example of this is the story (graphic 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 get go 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 – this Demiurge – 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, a blind god even. 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. (If interested, you can read a more detailed analysis of this at Gnosticism, Valentinus Style).


The Garden of Eden is only a deceptive paradise created by 'The Lord God' for reasons little more than a cage, 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. But mankind is not content and somehow innately knows it; is missing something and reaching for it. ”The Lord God” (desperately) attempts to fulfill this longing and repeatedly fails.


Enters the subtle, crafty, and shrewd serpent. (And you'll note that none of this descriptive words mean evil). In this particular interpretation the symbol and imagery of the serpent is more akin to (possibly) the Holy Spirit, giving directions to their escape from this delusional cage of Paradise. The serpent is acting of behalf of something or someone external to this Garden of Eden. Something or someone above and beyond ”The Lord God” of the Garden of Eden.


The 'secret' to exit this existence of enslavement and servitude is to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. (For which the God of Eden is concerned with, but even more concerned with, what if Adam & Eve were to eat of the Tree of Life?!


The potential, while still maintaining this alternative symbolism and imagery, is that the Son of God – not the God of Eden, but an external and alien God – a 'true' God – 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.


Now I am fully aware that the Conservative Christian will bolt with fear of heresy and damnation, making accusations of following Satan (or at least being duped by him). 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 within this Gnostic interpretation as well as within their own bible, that it doesn't have to be literal or historic to be true.

~


Love and Control.

I think this may very well be the defining difference between being Religious and being 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 with organized and institutionalized religion. These are slave masters.


The Mexican marionette Pedro made a simple mistake. What he thought was God was really little more than his religiosity.


Coraline (interestingly, with the help of a Black Cat who was not subjective to the Other Mother's powers...?) saw through the Beldam's deception and lies.


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


~


In conclusion, I believe to the Spiritual, God loves us, while to the Religious, God controls us.
I don't believe you can have it both ways.