Dependence

We in the West have been raised in a society that has so grossly distorted emotional health that most of us think that the healthy are sick.  This is especially true of our views on relationships and dependence.  This blog excerpts Anthony De Mello from his book Awareness and, although it is excerpted verbatim, it also represents my thoughts verbatim on the matter.  

"Some of you wonder if there is a gray area before something becomes an attachment, before identification sets in.  Say a friend dies. It seems right and very human to feel some sadness about that.  But what reaction?  Self-pity?  What would you be grieving about? Think about that. What I'm saying is going to sound terrible to you, but I told you, I'm coming from another world.  Your reaction is personal loss, right?  Feeling sorry for "me" - or for other people that your friend might have brought joy to.  But even that means that you're feeling sorry for other people who are feeling sorry for themselves.  If they're not feeling sorry for themselves, what would they be feeling sorry for?  We never feel grief when we lose something that we have allowed to be free, that we have never attempted to possess.  Grief is a sign that I made my happiness depend on this thing or person, at least to some extent.  We're so accustomed to hear the opposite of this that what I say sounds inhuman, doesn't it?

But it's what all the mystics in the past have been telling us.  I'm not saying that "me," the conditioned-self, will not sometimes fall into its usual patterns.  That's the way we've been conditioned.  But it raises the question whether it is conceivable to live a life in which you would be so totally alone that you would depend on no one. 

We all depend on one another for all kinds of things, don't we?  We depend on the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker.  Interdependence.  That's fine!  We set up society this way and we allot different functions to different people for the welfare of everyone, so that we will function better and live more effetively - at least we hope so.  But to depend on another psychologically - to depend on another emotionally - what does that imply?  It means to depend on another human being for my happiness.

Think about that.  Because if you do, the next thing you will be doing whether you're aware of it or not, is demanding that other people contribute to your happiness.  Then there will be a next step - fear, fear of loss, fear of alienation, fear of rejection, mutual control.  Perfect love casts out fear.  Where there is love there are no demands, no expectations, no dependency.  I do not demand that you make me happy; my happiness does not lie in you.  If you were to leave me, I will not feel sorry for myself; I enjoy your company immensely, but I do not cling. 

I enjoy it on a nonclinging basis.  What I really enjoy is not you; it's something that's greater than both you and me.  It is something that I discovered, a kind of symphony, a kind of orchestra that plays one melody in your presence, but when you depart, the orchestra doesn't stop. When I meet someone else, it plays another melody, which is also very delightful.  And when I'm alone, it continues to play.  There's a great repertoire and it never ceases to play.

That's what awakening is all about.  That's also why we're hypnotized, brainwashed, asleep.  It seems terrifying to ask, but can you be said to love me if you cling to me and will not let go?  If you will not let me be?  Can you be said to love me if you need me psychologically or emotionally for your happiness?  This flies in the face of the universal teaching of all the scriptures, of all religions, of all the mystics.  "How is it that we missed it for so many years?"  I say to myself repeatedly.  "How come I didn't see it?"  When you read those radical things in the scriptures, you begin to wonder:  Is this man crazy?  But after a while you begin to think everybody else is crazy.  "Unless you hate your father and mother, brothers and sisters, unless you renounce and give up everything you possess, you cannot be my disciple."  You must drop it all.  Not physical renunciation, you understand; that's easy.  When you illusions drop, you're in touch with reality at last, and believe me, you will never again be lonely, never again!  Loneliness is not cured by human company.  Loneliness is cured by contact with reality.  Oh, I have so much to say about that.  Contact with reality, dropping one's illusions, making contact with the real.  Whatever it is, it has no name.  We can only know it by dropping what is unreal.  You can only know what aloneness is when you drop your clinging, when you drop your dependency.  But the first step toward that is that you see it as desirable.  If you don't see it as desirable, how will you get anywhere near it?  Think of the loneliness that is yours.  Would human company ever take it away?  It will only serve as a distraction.  There's an emptiness inside, isn't there?  And when the emptiness surfaces, what do you do?  You run away, turn on the television, turn on the radio, read a book, search for human company, seek entertainment, seek distraction.  Everybody does that.  It's big business nowadays, an organized industry to distract us and entertain us."

The Tragic events of 9/11 - and how they changed my life

So much has been written on 9/11 that I hesitate to add yet another article to the pile.  But I suppose my story, as similar as it may be to others, has never been told.  For me 9/11 only began a journey for me, it certainly did not end on that day.  So here it is, like it or leave it.

I remember the morning of September 11, 2001 very vividly.  My wife was 7 months pregnant with our third child. I was working for the brokerage firm Raymond James and was reading the stock market news on the internet like I did most every other day when I heard the news of the second plane hit.  The first had hit while I was getting ready for work and, at the time, everyone assumed it was a tragic accident.  Initial reports were that it was a small plane that had collided with the first tower.  Things like this happen from time to time and, while tragic, we usually think little of accidents like that. When we heard of a second plane collision, though, we knew it was no accident.  Everyone in our office gathered around a small TV for most of the morning, watching the same video replay over and over again.  Within minutes, or at least within a couple hours, we were told that Osama bin Laden was probably behind this.  We were shown pictures of celebrations in the streets of Islamic countries.  I knew that there were extremist Muslims in the world, but why would they do this?  I was overtaken by sadness and anger and hatred of these people.

At the time, I was using Yahoo Messenger a lot.  I had made a few online friends that I would talk to from time to time, many of which were in foreign countries.  By chance, I had made a few Islamic friends in Muslim countries.  One of the first things I did was to get online and ask one of my Iranian friends, "Why?  Why would Muslims hate us so much to do this horrible thing?"  Her reply was simple.  It didn't resonate with me at the time, but it has stuck with me over the years.  She said, "We don't hate you. Don't believe everything you hear."  Still, the facts as I understood them indicated that at least 19 people hated us that much, and as I would be told later, apparently a whole country of folks in Afghanistan and Iraq also wanted to see us dead.  Initially, I supported both wars.  I had voted for GW Bush in 2000 on moral and economic grounds.  I voted to re-elect him in 2004 because of his war efforts.

I have never been a fan of "the mainstream media".  I believe the media has long abandoned impartial reporting of the news in favor of a biased, bought and paid for political or corporate agenda.  Big business pays the bills with their advertising dollars and it is rare that an unfavorable story will be aired (or printed) if that story will kill the revenue stream of the media outlet.  Especially since most local media has been consolidated into the hands of a few national companies - the independents have largely disappeared.  As a financial advisor, I could see that much of the media that I was getting was skewed - and some of it flat out false and misleading - so to provide better advice to my clients I began to seek out alternative media.  It was in this process that I began to realize just how inextricably linked business and politics were.  My naivety of altruism on a societal basis (I did grow up in a southern Christian home, after all) began to be replaced with the realism that people rarely acknowledged God in their hearts with their actions.  They were generally selfish by nature.  Cui bono, the old latin expression (meaning "who benefits?") began to be a question that I invoked on an increasingly regular basis as I sought to ascertain the truth of a situation.  I found a few bloggers who seemed to have an extraordinary wealth of knowledge about financial matters who were prescient in predicting many economic events.  After following them for some period of time, I began to realize that they not only made more sense than what I was reading in the mainstream media, but they were actually doing investigative research to form their opinions.  They were following the money trails.  They were exposing the contradictions.  They were presenting opposing viewpoints.  In short, they were reporting the old fashioned way.  They were not always right, but they always made me think.

These financial blogs became very valuable to me in business.  They helped me to gain perspective on a very volatile time in the markets.  But just as valuable to me were the interactive comments at the end of the articles.  Yes, feedback from other readers, like me, who were viewing the same articles with the same suspiciousness of the mainstream press.  I began to read this feedback, which often included links to other sites, videos, and articles.  It was in one of these comments, somewhere in about 2007, that I first read about a project called "Loose Change".  The guys behind Loose Change had been trying to put together a fictional movie about the 9/11 attacks.  As they were researching, they came to the conclusion that there was likely enough evidence out there to actually corroborate some of the conspiracy theories about it being an inside job.  The fictional film switched to a non-fiction documentary.  Since they were exploring and learning as they researched, the web releases that they would make would change as new evidence presented itself.  The first release was by far the most speculative in nature and included some sketchy theories that tended to put the credibility of the entire piece in question.  Later editions removed most of those sketchy theories.

When I watched it for the first time, I was taken aback.  I didn't believe all of the claims that the movie made, nor did I necessarily believe the attributions of motive that were tossed out there.  But what I did know is that some of the claims they were making seemed very credible and sound.  They didn't have to be right on everything for me to begin to doubt the official story, they only had to be right on a few things.  Loose Change was the catalyst for me to begin searching on my own for answers.  I still happen to believe that they make a strong case for many of the things they argue and should be viewed as a must see for anyone looking to challenge their personal thoughts on the matter.  It uses examples of history to illustrate how false flag attacks can be used to gin up support for a cause and how compartmentalization of information can actually have people working on top secret projects but still know little to nothing about what they are involved in.  You can view the full video on You tube for free here.  Remember, they don't have to 100% right about everything to be 100% right about some of it.

After opening my mind up to the possibility that not all was as I had been told, I began spending hours and hours reading up on different theories.  Some of them seemed to use some pretty weak evidence or faulty logic for their claims.  Those I generally dismissed, or at least placed on the back burner for someone else to provide some better evidence to substantiate the theory.  Some, however, had some compelling claims to examine and re-examine.  One such website examines the flight 93 crash site.  Their main claim is that 1) the hole that was supposedly created by the jet plane could actually be found on a 1994 USGS map seven years before the crash occurred; and 2) Metal twists, breaks, and warps in a plane crash.  But it does not vaporize.  There was not 100 tons of debris in the hole in the ground where the plane was said to have crash landed.  Nor were any human remains found.  All these things were said to have completely vaporized in the crash, yet an Arabic passport was found intact at the site.  Investigators were not allowed to investigate and original eye witness testimony said they saw no "typical plane wreckage".  Dismissing many other questions of flight 93, one might ask if the flight ever actually took place to begin with.  Here's the interactive site.


Of course, I question the same thing at the Pentagon.  Initial eyewitness testimony indicated a missile had hit the Pentagon, not an airplane - and several people interviewed immediately after the hit stated that they smelled cordite or gunpowder.  Indeed, the damage done to the building was not damage that would have or could have been done by an airplane.  Besides, there was almost no wreckage at the site, no skid marks on the lawn, and the wreckage that WAS there did not match the plane that it was supposed to have come from.  Additionally, there were many security cameras that had evidence of the crash, yet no pictures were ever released from any of them that would show an airplane hitting the building.  I believe it was a missile.

Black swan events,  for those unfamiliar with the term, are events that can theoretically occur but are so rare that when they do occur, they are greeted with shock and great surprise.  They would be akin to a 500 year flood happening.  Theoretically it is possible, but it should only happen once every five centuries.  The official government story of 9/11 has not one but dozens of these black swan events taking place all at the same time.

WTC building 7 is a black swan event.  There have been hundreds of sites pop up that focus on WTC building 7 as indisputable evidence that the whole story was a setup.  This particular building was never hit by an airplane and sustained minimal damage from debris, yet in only a course of a few hours it collapsed at near free-fall speed into its own footprint.  Skyscrapers that catch fire just don't do that.  Even if it would collapse, it would not have done so at free-fall speed, nor would it have done so into its own footprint.  There are reasons why controlled demolition teams are utilized when taking down tall buildings.  If they are weakened unevenly, the building will tilt during demolition, causing wide damage to surrounding areas.  Fact is that all three WTC buildings fell into their own footprint.  No other skyscraper in history has ever collapsed on itself due to fire, though many have caught fire and many have been hit by airplanes.  I won't even go beyond a mention of the fact that the BBC actually reported the collapse of WTC7 on live TV before it actually happened.  Yes, while the reporter was talking about its recent collapse, the building could be seen standing in the background.

Taking a step beyond 9/11 to where that event led us - into a global war on terror (initially focused on Osama bin Laden), one must find the interview that the Pakistani's had with bin Laden in 2001 noteworthy.  In it he denies any involvement in the attacks.  This is important because the events of 9/11 have been used to justify every conflict that we have been involved in since that day - in particular the war against Islamic terrorists (Al-Quaida).  Never will a terror group deny involvement in an act of such magnitude.  In fact, there are many who claim responsibility for attacks that they were not involved in to further their clout.  The videos of bin Laden that began to show up as the war progressed were obviously doctored and used as propaganda to perpetuate the war.  After all, why would we want to continue to fight if the guy who we were going after had been killed?

Recently I stumbled upon a site that challenged even what I thought I knew to be true about the government's story.  If you are ready for this, check out September Clues. I was blown away by this amateur video put together by a guy armed with nothing more than some basic knowledge of photo and video editing.  He examines in great detail how what we thought we saw on TV that day was actually 50% fabrication and 50% power of suggestion.  In other words, if you see something surprising and shocking and you begin to describe it to me, then I confidently and authoritatively tell you that what you actually saw was something else (that it had been confirmed and corroborated elsewhere), most people will accept that what they saw was inaccurately recollected and will change their story to match the "confirmed" version.  From a video editor's perspective, the evidence presented in this piece is absolutely mind blowing.  Some things that seemed right at the time will take on a whole new meaning to you after you watch it.

Needless to say, these are only a handful of items on the 9/11 tragedy that I have studied in depth.  For the sake of brevity, I have omitted much of my journey.  It has been a journey that has shattered the left-right paradigm for me - displaying in no uncertain terms that an unelected shadow government exists and does indeed call most of the shots.  It has unveiled how the banking cartels can make or break a business, or a country.  It has shown me that power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely.  It has shown me that democracy does matter, but it doesn't matter as much as we are led to believe it does.  Importantly, though, it has shown me that while I love the founding ideals of my country, there are many in powerful positions who do not care hide nor hair about those ideals and who will manipulate the people of our country into stripping themselves of the very tenets of freedom that made our country strong and great to begin with.

I am on a journey.  Many people, at various points in their own journey, have joined me on my walk in the past several years.  To you I say, "You are not alone.".

When you least expect it

Anybody who has known me for any length of time knows that I have been warning people to prepare for something severe to happen since 2008.  A couple years ago it became clear that the worst possible outcome was going to be postponed and that would give us 2-3 years to begin setting back, storing up, and preparing for what is to come.

Unfortunately, rather than using this time to their advantage what has actually happened is that people have generally become complacent.  Though most people I talk to know "in their gut" that something is not quite right with the world, most also refuse to accept that the "new normal" will be unrecognizable to them.

The United States that used to be exists now only in the hearts and minds of those who lived through her past.  The modern USA has been co-opted by lobbyists and corporate interests that craft and twist legislation to serve their interests rather than the interest of the common man.  The currency is no longer sound and the marketplaces are manipulated.  Manufacturing has largely disappeared and with it has gone the strong work ethic that defined this nation for two centuries.

One of the things that I have been encouraging people to do is to prepare for a currency crisis.  There are many ways that one should do this, but chief among those ways is to buy some physical gold and silver and keep it in your possession.  I cannot stress this point any more that I am saying right now.  If you do not do this and do it soon, you may simply never have a chance to do so before it is too late.  No one rings a bell and tells you before your currency dies, it just happens one day.  There are warning signs, yes, but once the general public realizes that something is wrong, your time to prepare is over with.  Done.

As a financial advisor, I have heard many people over the years ask me why I didn't see this or that crisis coming and make adequate recommendations to avoid getting caught up in the crisis.  In general, it is because no crisis feels like a crisis before it happens.  It is when you least expect it that the rug is pulled out from under your feet.  This time, I'm offering fair warning.  There is a crisis on our hands and you had BETTER TAKE HEED of it.  You need to prepare in many ways.  I estimate that you have somewhere between 60 and 120 days left to prepare.  Of course, my timing could be off, but then again it might not.

The leadership of this country has been setting the example by engaging in disaster preparations for the past five years.  Recently those preparations have intensified in both frequency and in depth and strength.  Financial band-aids have been applied round the world while the wounds fester and ooze below the bandage.  We have the warning signs, but our normalcy bias tells us that in time everything will once more be okay, like it always has been in the past.

Our wealth as a nation has largely been a false prosperity - ushered in by an illusion of credit driven prosperity.  The manufacturing that used to back our economy, and the gold that used to back our currency is gone.  Reversion to the mean is in order, and it will not be slow or pretty.  I urge you once more, if you have not done so, to consider what life will be like for you if your currency collapses and to take appropriate action to prepare for it.

I have been studying alternative health for the past six or seven years so that I would not be beholden to the healthcare system.  I have been learning to garden for the past six years so that I would know how to grow at least a portion of my own food.  I have been exchanging some of my fiat currency for hard money so that I would have something tangible when the day comes that my paper dollar loses the bulk of its value.  I have been storing up some emergency supplies, in case my grocery store runs out of food and water. I have undertaken to learn some self-defense in case law enforcement is unable or unwilling to keep the peace.  I realize that I am a long way from where I need to be...but I have at least been moving in that direction.

My question to you is, if you knew that a significant disrupting event were on the horizon that would substantially alter life as you know it, would you prepare for it?  My belief is that that event is coming, and coming very soon.  In fact, I believe that it could be imminent.  Are you ready for it?  If not, what will you do to at least take a step of preparedness in that direction?  The significant event might be a bank failure (cyber attack), a war or terrorist attack, a severe natural disaster, a power grid failure, or any other number of possibilities.  But it is coming.

I urge you - in the strongest term - to get off your butt and do something about it.  If you don't, I simply can't help you.

Label me

I remember few things about my father from my childhood.  Mom and dad split up when I was a young boy, about six years old - so there are not too many things that I can say definitively that I remember about my dad and his personality.  He loved electronics.  He liked to garden. And he was quite possibly the most organized person I have ever met.  The first two traits I inherited, the third I sadly did not.  My father labeled everything.  If it could be categorized, you could find it filed away neatly on a shelf somewhere with other like objects and identified with a colorful label.  To this day I can remember the hundreds of record albums stored in our family room, organized first by genre and then alphabetically.

While this certainly has its advantages, it also has its limitations.  Not everything fits neatly into a label, which makes categorization difficult and somewhat inaccurate at times.  But the human mind seems to desire this order and so we persist.  If those labels were to stop at the widgets on our shelves, I suppose they would be nothing but helpful.

But examining a person in the same way can be troublesome.  Unlike a commoditized manufactured item that is almost identical to the one on the shelf next to it, humans are a product of infinitely different circumstances, experiences, inputs, and heritage.  No two are exactly alike.  Yet the desire to label persists.  The broadest of these labels are applied based upon nothing more than the geography of where one was born or currently lives.  They are Iranian, or American, or Chinese.  While it is true that there are certain cultural norms that are widely present in certain geographies that are not widely present in others, the idea that all 1.5 billion people living in southeast Asia can cohesively be labeled as anything should boggle the mind.  More narrowly, the labels continue with associations to a religious dogma such as Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist.  There are unquestionably some common tenets to these groups, but the fact that those who identify with one of those three words encompasses more than half the world's population, one should question the efficacy of those labels as well. They obviously mean vastly different things to those who claim membership in them.

The world of politics has plenty of labels too: conservative, liberal, communist, patriot.  The problem with all labels is that they are subject to application by people who freely define them in vastly different ways.  The label also ignores the different experiences, life circumstances, and heritage of those who might agree with part of the term has come to mean, but not all of it.  A person who calls himself a liberal, for instance, may not necessarily be supportive of abortion or gun control, while a conservative might not be supportive of prayer in schools.  These labels, like all attempts to categorize the complex thoughts of a human being, are all limiting and inadequate.  They, in fact, negate the individuality of people and deny them their own voice.  Worse, people can be assigned to a group only to have the defining characteristics of that group changed without their approval.  Such is often the case as societal agendas shift and members of that society embrace some of the new but retain much of the old.

These labels lend themselves well to stereotypes that might appear from highlighting some of the fringe elements of the "group".  Conspiracy theorists are all crazy.  Muslims think it pleases God to blow up their children.  Christians hate gays.  Americans are arrogant and fat.  Conservatives don't care about the environment.  While there is a reason why these stereotypes appeared, when they are broadly applied to a large group they are certainly found to be untrue.  Because the thoughts of the one are not the thoughts of the many.  But the very existence of the label can lead to exploitation of the members of that group by those in the media who wish to spin an agenda.  Associate an extreme person doing an extreme thing with a member of a given group and you have tarnished their image.  In fact, many unsavory individuals use a Trojan Horse tactic to infiltrate a popular cause and perform extreme acts in the name of the cause - thus redefining the cause and reducing those who would wish to be seen in alignment with that cause.  A perfect example of this - Tea Party activists (those concerned with excessive taxation) have successfully been re-branded as white racists.  Though there are surely some in the movement who are racist, the beginnings of the movement had nothing to do with race.  Who would want to wear that label?

Most of the time, people find themselves assigned to a group without having formally requesting to be assigned.  But other times, people willingly join a group simply because they derive power or a sense of identity through aligning themselves with groups of other people.  I see this happen in religion all the time.  People call themselves Christian because they want to go to heaven and think that joining a church and stating a belief in Jesus will get them there.  In some ways I think they simply want to ride someone else's coattails to the afterlife because they don't have confidence that they will get there on their own.  Al Quaeda has grown in popularity not necessarily because large amounts of people approved of their beliefs and tactics; rather, they viewed them as the only viable force to join to oppose the military intrusion of the West into their land. People joining groups for these reason generally try to figure out what the "group" believes, then (at least in public) make their lives resemble those norms.  They may have no more relationship to the group than mickey mouse does to a scorpion, but they join because they believe the group has something to offer them.  It is natural to seek power in situations like this and certain groups are conducive to granting such power.  However, it is concerning to me that some people think that by labeling themselves x,y, or z that they somehow will score spiritual points and end up gaining a place in the afterlife as a result of their self-identification.

Scripture states that while man looks at the outside, God looks at the heart.  Ultimately a person can label or be labeled all they want yet that will not change anything.  God sees the heart.  I would assert that unless one has the specific agenda to create division and disharmony, it is a bad idea on almost every level to try to categorize human beings.  Our attempts to do so are flawed at best, and quite damaging at worst.  They may make us temporarily feel better in our attempts to find meaning and purpose in life, but ultimately they only lead to division and death.  The best label a person can wear is the label that they are a human being - seeking the path of God for their life.  Encourage people to strive for this.

Homosexuality and the Bible

I've taken a nearly one year hiatus from writing blogs, so we shall see if the muse has left me.  Much as I wanted to avoid it, my attention has been drawn to this topic through numerous encounters in person, in the church, and through social media, so I felt the need to address it here.

The conversation has once again entered public debate as to whether or not homosexuality should be accepted by the population at large - embraced by business and the church - or discarded and opposed as an aberrant behavior of unbelievers who are trying to systematically dismantle Christianity.  As is my usual pensive nature, I've given a lot of thought to this prior to my writing of this blog.  The first part of it will undoubtedly anger half of the readers.  But being an equal opportunity offender, I'm relatively sure that the group who finds themselves in agreement with me at the beginning will surely be angry by the end.

The Bible appears to be fairly clear in several places that homosexuality is not something that was viewed as godly.  Indeed the Levitical law (Lev. 20:13) even proscribed the death penalty for both men who would be caught in homosexual acts.  Lest the casual observer limit the biblical view of homosexuality to just men, the New Testament (Romans 1:26) clarifies that women exchanged "natural" sexual relations for the "unnatural".  This reference implies lesbianism and perhaps bestiality had been practiced by women and in the context of the paragraph were being condemned by the writer, the apostle Paul.

Pretty cut and dry, right?  Maybe not.

First of all, it is important to view any discussion in the proper context.  If a man is standing next to his child at a busy intersection and commands his child, "Do not cross the street!", that is a specific command for a specific street for a specific reason - not a general and overarching command to the child to never cross any streets anywhere.  While the Ten Commandments were like God's Constitution - and could largely be applied as a framework for living to mankind as a whole - the Levitical law was similar to our own legislative framework.  It was Moses' attempt to take the Ten Commandments and develop rules for his society; the purpose of which was to shape and control the Hebrew people's behavior to resemble the behavior of one who embraced the spirit of the Commandments.

So why include homosexual behavior in the list of levitical prohibited acts?  The most obvious answer to this is procreation as it relates to political dominance.  We can see even today the effect of cultures who embrace procreation versus those who limit it.  The hispanic culture, known for their large families, is rapidly displacing the white culture's dominance in the USA, and the Muslims - also known for their large families - are rapidly growing their influence in western Europe.  The Israelites had just emerged from years of political subjugation and slavery in Egypt which had been prompted by fears of the Egyptian ruling class that the growing number of Hebrews (Exodus 1:9) might result in their empire falling.  Procreation resulted in economic and military might and homosexuality is very much anti-procreation.  It treats sex primarily as recreation.

Homosexuality was also prevalent in various pagan temple rituals.  The passage in Genesis 2:24 ("...the two shall become one flesh") is often cited in modern marriage ceremonies to indicate a unity or cohesion between the marriage partners - a blending of their unique characteristics to become a part of one another, forming a more complete "whole" (the Yin and Yang?).  Indeed, Jesus even referenced this spiritual concept during prayer to the Father (John 17:21) where he prayed for unity among men just as he was one with God.  The pagan temple rituals often involved a priest or priestess of the false god who would unite in sexual relations (homosexual and heterosexual) with the temple-goers as part of the worship of that god.  In this way, the worship of the false god would be self-gratifying to the worshiper and would in effect spiritually unite them with the false god by proxy through the priest.  The writers of the Bible were not unaware of this practice (1 Corinthians 6:15) and condemned prostitution in this circumstance.  Interestingly enough, prostitution in other instances was neither vilified nor prohibited.  Sampson, for instance, was not stripped of his super-human strength when he visited a Philistine prostitute (Judges 16:1-3).  God's strength only left him when he broke his Levite vow to never let a razor touch his hair.  Similarly, Rahab the prostitute was never told to "go and sin no more" by the Israelites, yet she is revered for her courage and can be found listed in the genealogy of Jesus.

Some people point to Sodom and Gomorrah as other examples of why homosexuality is so evil, yet the Bible is pretty clear that in those two cities there simply was no spiritual light.  It references a people who are so corrupt that they would take anything that was not theirs, simply for their own gratification - the very antithesis of Jesus' golden rule of treating others the way that they would want to be treated.  The corruption of those people need not be a de facto indictment of homosexuality.  Indeed, the people didn't seem to care whether the visitors were male or female - they would have raped either to satisfy their own selfish desires.  Unquestionably, selfishness is a form of pride and the Bible speaks against pride in hundreds of places.

So is homosexuality considered a sin in the Bible?  Certainly.  Sort of.  But if one considers the context of the sin, one might also come to the conclusion that using birth control (even the natural "timing method") is the same sin.  Both elevate sex to a god-like experience to be worshipped.  Both directly contradict the levitical laws encouraging large families and the first command of God to mankind to "be fruitful and multiply".  Both can be indicative of a form of pride suggesting a lack of faith in God and a desire by us to "control" our lives.  Most modern homosexuals do not stand at temple doors enjoining people to false gods, but that does not mean that the same thing could not be happening symbolically by the practicing homosexual - improper prioritizing of sex or relationship in and of themselves can be a barrier to God (You shall have no other gods before me).  Likewise, however, that barrier is not limited to homosexuals.  Many heterosexuals are driven by the same underlying motivation when they replace reliance on God with pride or another human being.  God looks at the heart, though (1 Samuel 16:7) while man looks at the outward appearance. 

Finally, this whole issue of supporting "the biblical model of marriage, one man and one woman" is a bit obscene.  Even the most cursory glances of the old testament show men of God such as David, Solomon, Abraham, Jacob, and countless others, had more than one wife.  In fact, multiple wives were codified into Jewish law as the "kinsman redeemer" was supposed to marry the wife of a deceased relative to preserve her estate and her lineage (Ruth 4).  Never, anywhere in the Bible, ever, is it stated that God's "model" is one man and one wife.  There are two or three places that are cited out of context and twisted by the "one plus one" crowd to imply such a model, but they, like our example of crossing the street above, are taken very much out of context.  It would be more accurate to cite the "Puritanical model of marriage" or the "traditional American model of marriage" because it certainly is not the Biblical model.  Nor is it the Islamic model.  Nor is it the Jewish model.

I am not gay and I think that there are a number of societal misconceptions about homosexuality that make this issue so sensitive and misunderstood, but that is neither here nor there. My intent in writing this blog today has more to do with my desire to exhort those who are attempting to "stand up for their faith" as it were, to consider where you got your opinions from, and consider if, through your thoughts and motivations, you might be engaged in the very same behavior that you are condemning.  As Jesus said to the spiritual leaders who had picked up stones to take the life of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:7), "He who is without sin, cast the first stone."

The Height of Arrogance

I grew up a pretty shy guy and I always admired my older brother's knack of being able to start conversations and make friends. One time I asked him how he did it and his answer to me began to shape my life from that moment forward. He told me to "know a little about a lot of things so that you can have something in common with just about everyone. Then when you find that commonality, ask them a lot of questions about it."

His counsel set me down a path of curiosity fulfillment where I began not only to do what he said about asking questions, but also where I began to read up on a wide variety of topics. The advent of the internet has only hastened this process in me by giving me virtual access to people all over the world to read about and communicate with through blogs, facebook, chat, videos, and numerous other ways of communication - not to mention instant access to libraries of newspapers in any one of about 200 countries at the push of a button. Over the years seeking deep knowledge and peculiar information about other cultures has become a sort of a hobby for me - something to kill time, build new friendships, and to satiate my curiosity.

Part of this curiosity led me to speaking in some depth to people of very different faith backgrounds than my own and learning not only what they believe and why, but how what they believe may differ significantly from the nominal faith that we think of when we hear the name of their religion. What I found is that very few people actually fit neatly into a "religious or philosophical box". Very few believe or practice 100% of the tenets of the group that they may associate with by name.

That being said, I have found certain beliefs that are commonly shared by many people of these groups that don't seem to make much sense to me when I examine them. One of the things that I've always found a bit odd about many hardline Muslims, for instance, is their insistence that God somehow needs help defending himself against infidel non-believers. This is how jihad is justified. Somehow, killing people in cold blood because of their belief system is considered a godly act. Our Western mindset easily dismisses this type of thinking as silly because we consider ourselves more dignified and civilized - choosing to fight our battles in the arena of the mind instead of with the sword. To me the Muslim stand on this issue is one of arrogance, essentially saying that God has appointed them as the arbiter of truth, judge, jury, and executioner.

A while back I began reading some of Gandhi's thoughts as they related to the missionary attempts to convert the Hindus to Christianity in the early 20th century. He found their conversion attempts to be curious as the people seemed more interested in winning a convert to a religion than they did in shaping and developing godly character in their converts.

Similarly I have spent a lifetime in a religion that has taught me that only people "like me" will see heaven and anyone who professes an association to another faith (or who hasn't even heard of my faith) is doomed to suffer an eternal punishment and damnation. A preacher that I heard at my church recently went so far as to make the bold claim that 2 billion people in this world have not ever heard the name of Jesus, yet they were "born guilty sinners" so they were destined to spend eternity in hell unless we abandoned our big homes, sold our possessions, and rushed over there to tell them the "good news about Jesus Christ."

In reflecting on this, I find it every bit as arrogant as the Muslim attempt to reshape the world in their image, albeit more socially palatable due to its non-violent method of conversion. Nonetheless it still makes God into an impotent being that requires our help to get his will accomplished. He "needs" us. I guess thinking that can make some people feel important for being the bearers of that news, or for possessing the hidden oracles of God that others are oblivious to. If God truly "needs" us to accomplish his will, he's a pathetic God and I don't want to serve him. Likewise, if he stands ready to condemn someone to the eternal fires of hell simply for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time, he's a sick and deranged God and I don't want to serve him.

My understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ is that he did what he did - living the perfect life and sacrificing his life, even unto death on a cross - because we (mankind) needed a bridge to God, a justification of the entire human race. With his life and death, he bridged that gap. With his message, he taught us how to act to align our own spirit with his so that we could have the same life in us, and have it abundantly. He taught us how to deny ourselves and submit ourselves to God. I assert that Jesus' life and sacrifice is sufficient to sanctify and justify anyone in the world who seeks to submit to the spirit of God, however that person knows to do that. His teachings appear in the principles of virtually every religion and philosophy in the world. I assert that if someone is seeking to please God, they will find his spirit and the teachings of Jesus anywhere in the world. This is not to say that I believe rote recitation of any particular religion is sufficient to earn someone a ticket to heaven. I believe with all my heart, though, that God is more interested in developing our character than in getting us to proclaim an allegiance or a creed with our lips. I also believe that his character is such that he would never create someone only to subsequently doom them to hell because of lack of opportunity. There must be another answer beside the arrogant one that places us on a pedestal of importance to God and his work.

Maybe my answer isn't right, but if it's not, I'm convinced that the alternative is not, as well.

Conundrums

I always hesitate to write blogs like this - blogs about judgmental attitudes can often point back to myself as having been judgmental in the very writing of the blog. I suppose that's true. In advance, I beg forgiveness for the likelihood that in my own meditation and ponderings I've played God and judged the heart of fellow people based solely on my observations and thoughts. This blog is not intended to stand in judgment of anyone, but it is the result of me digging in to my own faith journey and finding out what the whole point of it is and what it is that I even believe in.

I've talked many times about my spiritual upbringing - it's quite diverse. Was raised in an ultra conservative Southern Baptist home with a mom who thought sex was a dirty word and a dad who thought he should leave his stack of playboys out on the coffee table for visitors to enjoy. My church said that emotion was ungodly and "dangerous" and should never be expressed towards God. I attended Lutheran school for seven years where I was required to memorize bible verses and say the apostle's creed for a grade. After elementary school each day I would spend several hours with an older extremely pro-Israel couple who loved me and my mother dearly. They actively studied biblical numerology, astrology, and biblical end-times prophecy while smoking about four packs of cigarettes a day and throwing around cuss words like they should be part of any fourth grader's vernacular. My mother taught me to *appreciate* (and use) extrasensory perception and other spiritual phenomenons while also telling me that rock and roll music was from the devil.

I later attended some charismatic churches where I witnessed some pretty amazing stuff. People speaking in different languages that they did not know, people with some nasty ailments being prayed for and healed, people becoming "drunk" in the spirit and being "slain" in the spirit to the point where they fell down and occupied a semi-conscious state for several minutes. Most impressive to me were the prophecies being uttered by "strangers" to me and the congregations, saying stuff so poignant that no one could have made that kind of stuff up. I also remember on several occasions have worship experiences that were so deep and meaningful that I was literally brought to tears in the service.

Different as these experiences have been, one thing has remained constant... there are good people and bad people in each place. My spirit has found both kinship and enmity in all of them. There are attributes of each experience that I think have positively formed me in some way - and there have been experiences in each that have left a deep and powerful negative mark, as well.

I recently attended a meeting that was primarily attended by charismatic believers where we had a great time of prayer and prophetic ministry. I have missed this depth of communion with God in prayer and was feeling the longing to be a part of that kind of church body again...when I subsequently was also met with such a "religious spirit" of condemnation and judgment, arrogance, fakery, and spiritual pride that I just wanted to run away and never return.

Many times I have considered changing churches so that I could find that group of people whom I could feel "at home spiritually with". But the more I look, the more I don't think that group of people exists - the closest that I have found don't even technically share my Christian faith. I deal with the conundrum of what to do with this faith that I proclaim. Indeed, I often wonder aloud exactly what my faith is even in. I hear people proclaim a Christian faith and then deny living the life that Jesus would urge living and the message that he taught. Makes me wonder what their faith is in, as well? They proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God and thus they consider themselves a Christian. Or some of the charismatics pray in tongues and prophecy, yet do not follow the simple commands that Jesus taught. I wonder what the point of that is? You either believe the message or you don't. It's either a part of who you are or it isn't.

I have largely found myself drawn to the people who just want to be real. If the word "shit" is on their lips, the word "shit" comes out of their mouth. If they are in the midst of a crisis of faith, they don't try to "fake it until they make it". If they stub their toe, they tell you it hurts. They do their best to be honest about everything - the bad AND the good. Not to say that it's a good idea to intentionally offend people or to live in a state of negativity; rather I'm saying I've grown weary of guessing about people's real state of mind. I'm weary of hearing someone preach "dying to the flesh" and then proceed to cling to wealth and possession over relationship. I'm pretty much done with hearing any word of instruction from any person of faith who does not have the capability to ask forgiveness for one of their actions that caused hurt and division. I prefer an honest and humble agnostic who smokes weed on the weekends to a degreed and decorated pastor who is afraid to admit his faults and shortcomings. In fact, there are many in the church who would actively tell me that it is my duty to avoid befriending that humble agnostic.

I don't want to abandon the "church" as a result of this, but I truly am in a conundrum over to what extent to be involved. I want to know and fellowship with the God of the universe, but I'm not real interested in associating with many of the people who call themselves his ardent followers. I love the grace and the blessings that flow from on high...but I think that so many "believers" have yet to allow that part of God to flow through their lives. I want to fellowship with those who are "real", but I don't want that reality at the expense of depth with God.

I have no answers. And when I have no answers inclining me to change course I generally take that to mean that I need to continue doing what I'm doing and stay on the same heading. I'm quite certain I still won't fit in anywhere. But I guess life's purpose is not for me to fit in somewhere... it is to do my best to be conformed to the image of the Son, letting his life flow through me, regardless of what goes on around me.

And so the conundrum continues.