Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Children know God?

I met a woman yesterday, trying to convert me into something... one thing lead to another
and I said that I believe in God but I don't believe the Bible has anything to do with God,
and she asked me how do we know the God's truth if not by the Bible,
and I said that I believe we are born with it.
She laughed and said that a newborn baby couldn't tell me anything about God,
to which I responded that perhaps it could if we only knew how to communicate these matters with it.
Then the buss came and we went to different directions.

But - I do believe we are born innocent, without sin, in perfect connection with God.
I believe all the crap that separate us from God comes later, in conditioning, "education", programming from outside.
A newborn baby doesn't feel hate, fear, anger, sadness. It cries because it is in pain or in need and has no other means to get our attention.
A baby doesn't cheat, lie, commit adultery, steal anything, a baby isn't unfaithful. A baby lives in full existence with God.
If a baby dies, it doesn't go to hell but to heaven, if you believe in such things.
I don't know if a baby COULD express the connection, but neither could any of us. We can try, but it is always inadequate.

Also, the fact that you cannot communicate with someone or something isn't the same as that someone or something would be ignorant, stupid or have nothing of value to share with anyone. Sure, I can think this woman wouldn't believe dogs go to heaven either, or know anything about God either...

"Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise."
-- Proverbs (ch. VI, v. 6)

"Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."
- Greek Scriptures, Matthew, 6:28-29


a reader commented this blog entry:
"yes. i do believe the children know. is why my kids don't go to school to unlearn the important things. i don't want them to forget and have to go through the painful process that i did to remember the things i was taught to believe were bad, or worse, weren't even real."

Sunday, June 28, 2009

I am getting interested in magic again...

Grant Morrison's Pop Magic! is a very good article, actually... so I too recommend The Disinformation Book of Lies - it's in there.

I find it interesting that I never really thought magic is useful... it's a bit like Granny Weatherwax says, that if it cannot be done without magic, it's probably not worth doing, and if it can be done without magic, it also should be done without magic.
I also thought that the consequences of magic are too wide and difficult to foresee, and could have unwanted side-effects, so it's better to stay out of the whole thing.


I WANT to be a fairytale witch and a sorceress. I want to make things happen by just a wave of a hand or wick of a wrist. I want to be able to levitate things, to fly, to summon, conjure and invoke things, to stop time, to read peoples' minds: I want Harry Potter magic and Sabrina magic and Charmed magic and Bewitched magic. I want Hollywood magic and fantasy magic. I want to be able to become invisible and see things that happens somewhere else or in another time. I want to travel in space and time by will. I want to be able to curse people and to bless people. I want to be able to turn people into frogs. I want to live forever young and beautiful and irresistable, strong and healthy.

It MUST be possible. Someone imagined it, it must be possible. I just have to find the way.


It is really hard, though... I have been very well programmed and conditioned. I believe magic just doesn't exist, and I would be terrified if it did, so my mind protects itself by not allowing it to happen... I wonder how it would be possible to reprogramme me and recondition me to believe that magic does happen and that it is quite normal and possible...

Also, I really don't feel like reading the dozens and dozens of volumes of exoteric and occult literature available on line, vading through Crowley and other "biblical" writings... but I think I should, and I should do it with intention and understanding and read it as many times as it takes to get it...
It feels like a vast and pointless task though... as I really don't believe in THAT kind of magic... and all this talk about demonology, necromancy and sigil magic makes my guts turn.

"In this book it is spoken of the sephiroth and the paths, of spirits and conjurations, of gods, spheres and planes, and many other things which may or may not exist. It is immaterial whether they exist or not. By doing certain things, certain results follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophical validity to any of them."
-- Aleister Crowley

Saturday, June 27, 2009


"I am a Dedicant."
"Ok... I don't know what that is, but who am I to argue with you".
"A Dedicant is a person, male or female, who is, very literally, the spouse or lover of the Divine in this sphere of existence. For the god to whom I am a Dedicant, I am Wife on Earth. Wife of Flesh."
"Sort of Crist's Bride. Ok."
"It's uncanny how much of a whirlwind that simple word can stir. I've watched jaws drop open; seen people stammer; and have had them rapidly change the subject."
"Oh... It is uncanny... what has it to do with anyone else how you choose to relate to God and magic?"
"I've also been told that the type of magick I practice is "not possible" or that my experiences are doubtful because:
a) The gods do not mingle among us mere mortal creatures except in symbolic form;
b) The stories of that sort of thing happening are thousands of years old and, since no others have been recorded, there are obviously no more and never will be;
c) Why would you want to talk about a mystical experience so very personal? Those should only be discussed in theoretical and/or academic debates and certainly anyone who makes the claim to be doing this is suspicious;
and, my favorite,
d) If that god was going to do something like that, he would have told me himself."
"Oh? Interesting... If Gods walked among us 2000 and 4000 years ago, the Gods walk among us today. Now, I don't believe they do. There is only One God who doesn't interact with people in flesh. Or that is what I believe. But I am not denying your experience - or the experience of the others sharing your experience - just your interpretation of your experience. I believe you have an angelic lover. Nothing bad with that either. I'm not unfamiliar with that either. It just isn't part of my spirituality. Now, what comes to sharing an intimate and personal mystical experience - those SHOULD be shared with among friends and co-believers. If a high priestess cannot share her spiritual experience with her group, there's something seriously wrong with the group. What comes to God informing his other dedicants, isn't it His choice and his alone? Who am I to question the decisions and the wisdom of a God?"
"When did we get fundamentalist Pagans?"
"They have been among us always, dear Sapphire..."
"I interact daily with the Divine on many levels, from a simple stroke on the hair to high sex magick. I regularly "travel" to the Otherworlds where I have remained for what has seemed to be weeks there, only to find that it has been a few hours here. While there, I am exposed to great teachings and have had many mysteries revealed to me. I am honored and humbled to have earned this privilege."
"Good for you! And of course you should be sharing the teachings and mysteries with your group, if not the whole world."
"My High Priest, Shadowdragon, who is also my fiancée, has shown remarkable faith and strength of character by sharing in my practice. While most men would, and have, found my link to the Divine to be either a source of jealousy or could not bring themselves to fully participate, he has surprised me by accepting me wholeheartedly. Not only does he fold his practices into mine, but I find that my rituals and rites have greater energy. Not many men would have the confidence to share their wife with a god. It is to my great happiness that I listened when the Divine whispered over my shoulder, "This time, let me choose."
"Sounds absolutely lovely. Good for you."
"But, while a source of great energy, being a Dedicant, at least for me, has also been something of a burden. It means that all my workings focus through one deity."
"And that is a problem, because...?"
"How I relate to other gods and goddesses is directly influenced by my workings with this god."
"Why would you relate to other Gods and Goddesses?"
"There are deities who do not play well together which means that I have no contact with at least one popular goddess. Can't help others with their workings there."
"Why should you? It seems to me your work is very strictly defined and in my mind it's crazy to expect of you any help with any other Gods."
"I also have a harder time relating to the more traditionally female aspects of the craft. Moon phase? Sorry. I'll have to look up the info for that, as it simply has no bearing on how I work."
"There is nothing feminine about moon phases. In some cultures Moon is male. But when it has no bearing on how you work, why the heck should you even care of it? We all work magic in our own ways."
"It also means that I have hidden in a broomcloset within a broomcloset."
"With reactions like that, I can understand that."
"My mind was changed by having to defend myself yet again to what I thought was a community of people who might have, if not exactly the same, at least similar experiences to mine."
"Why? You don't need to defend yourself just because someone attacks you... or because someone doesn't approve you or your ways or thinks you're crazy. I think you're barking mad, but it really has nothing to do with me, and my opinion really doesn't have anything to do with you. So why are you defending yourself and your ways?"
"In the process, it occurred to me that I do not honor the gods by keeping silent."
"Depends on Gods..."
"It is through sharing our experiences with each other that we learn and that we teach."
"And through sharing what we have learned without experiencing it, or through experiencing ourselves."
"What honor to the Divine if all mystical experiences are kept greedily to one's self?"
"Depends on the Divine, again. Some Gods are honored through the respect of privacy. The experience was given to you, and, frankly, you cannot mediate your experiences even if you spoke like Shakespeare with the language of angels. Mystical experiences especially."
"Or if they are packaged off in little bits and only to the "worthy."
"Now, that... the latest fab is to give mystical knowledge to the "unworthy", who doesn't understand one bit but who will rape the wisdom, trample the pearls of knowledge into mud and bite your hand as thanks. They will also spread the knowledge tainted, tarred and twisted."
"Why is there such hostility to mystical experiences?"
"Envy... Inability to understand what it is... and usually people who are incapable to have mystical experiences think it's mostly waste of time and bullcock."
"I'm noticing more and more that people want to discuss technicalities within the craft."
"It is exactly because they are not "worthy"! It is EASY to memorize lists of herbs and Goddesses than really understand why we celebrate the Sabbaths. Anyone can arrange the altar "properly", buy pretty things decorated with pentagrams, dress witchily or go naked, but mystical experiences are not for everyone.
"Why are people not caught up in sitting and offering themselves to the Divine with perfect love and perfect trust? (Remember that concept?)"
"Yes, I do remember that empty trite. I believe we are here to LIVE, not to hunt for the extacy of mystical experiences, how ever much one might "learn". That to me is greedy and egoistic, but it's probably because I don't think mystical experiences and what you learn from them can be shared, and I find turning away from world and closing oneself in a cloister cowardly and egocentric - even if the cloister in only in my mind. But that's me."
"Is the problem that there are too many Pagans now learning strictly from a few high profile authors and the internet and are not interacting with elders who may have more to share?"
"High profile authors and internet are the elders of today. By the way... you claim you are a dedicant, meaning that you are learning directly from God, not from some elders. You shouldn't be preaching something you don't follow yourself."
"Is it that the elders have had enough of explaining the art of the craft to a generation raised on Hollywood expectations?"
"Hollywood expectations? Where do you think THOSE come from? It doesn't matter if you get the expectations on magic from a storyteller by a fire or from the television. Aleister Crowley and Helena Blavatsky weren't seduced by Hollywood. If an elder "have had enough of explaining the art to people", they aren't fit to be elders, don't you think?"
"Is it that there are so many "eBay Pagans" who are caught up in the nifty new chalice, who are buying boxes of stuff covered in pentagrams but who have forgotten that the stuff is all window dressing?"
"Excuse me, but your profile states your occupation is "ritual toolcraft and designer"... these people you despicingly call "eBay Pagans" support you. Stop selling nifty new chalices and boxes of stuff covered in pentagrams if you think people buying them are not "worthy"."
"Are too many people focusing too much on spellbooks and not enough on history and mythology?"
"If you wish people to respect your line of magic, you should be respecting theirs. You work with history and mythology, they with spellbooks. One line isn't better or more valuable than the other. I start to understand why people treat you weirdly... have you ever thought that it might be you and not them? That it might be your prejudices on them being somehow lesser than you, than the other way around?"
"Are people just plain losing the patience for the time it takes to establish that all important connection with the other side?"
"It doesn't take any time at all. It just is so that some people are not mystics. They could be meditating and focusing and praying and what not all they want, and still nothing would happen. It isn't their path. To YOU the "connection with the other side" is "all important", but I ask "what "other side"? There is only one side... God is HERE."
"Those among us who have interacted with the Divine are under an obligation to share what we know with others."
"Not at all. God is actually fully capable of taking care of that Herself. Of course, you MAY share, if you feel like it, but if you don't, don't. There's no obligation."
"Those of us who have been here longer need to reach out and tell others that not only are they not alone, but there is, in fact, so much more to see, so much more to know. That the gods and goddesses are out there and they are waiting for people to recognize them; to know that the old ways can be reborn."
"The old ways never died."
"Let us all speak of the gods and goddesses and their place at our tables. Let us all speak of knowing the touch of the Divine when we are lucky enough to experience it. Let us gather at fires and tell of the great things we have each of us known and done. Let us stand and shout that the gods are not buried in the past. That they walk among us this very day. Let us return to them their stature and let their names once again be spoken loudly. With honor."
"Who is your Divine husband? You never mention his name..."

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Freedom to preach hate

"Hate speech" is speech (spoken or written) intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone (a person, a group, an organization etc.) based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.

"Hate crime" is a crime where the victim is chosen because of his/her actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.

I was looking for information about WASPs. I thought "white anglo-saxon protestant" would cover any white Christian of British inheritage. I'm wrong.
Anyway, on my research journey I found the blog Vanishing American and in there the blog entry: "Force, justice, tyranny" which lead me to an article by Bonnie Erbe.

I agree with Bonnie Erbe. "Vanishing American" claims she's being anti-white racist, because she talks about three murders that were instigated by hate speech.
There is one problem though... the murders Bonnie Erbe is referring to are:
A black man - black and works for the Holocaust Museum - is killed by a white man - racist, antisemite
A white man - abortion doctor - is killed by a white man - "pro-lifer"
A white man - American soldier - is killed by a black man - Muslim who hates American soldiers and Jews "for what they have done to Muslims"

Obviously she is not talking about WHITE hatred or "right wing extremism". She is talking about the consequences of hate speech. It doesn't matter if the people spreading the hatred with their words is black or white, right wing or left wing, Christian or Muslim. People who believe the words and decide one must free the world from The Evil of Abortion, Jews, Colored people or American military - or what ever The Evil happens to be - for any price.
Of course, the Pro-Lifer thinks it is ok to kill a man to save hundreds of innocent, unborn babies.
The White Supremacist thinks it is ok to kill one black man to stop the Jews and Blacks from leading the world into perdition. "Vanishing American" seems to be seriously concerned about "the good old values and the American way of life" that is dying.
The Muslim thinks it's better to kill American soldiers and Jews before they manage to kill innocent Muslim children and women.
Sure, if killing The Evil stops a catastrophy, one SHOULD "kill The Evil". I have no problems in understanding the reasoning behind these murders. But what Bonnie Erbe is talking about is what made the Muslim believe that the American soldier was a threat to Muslims all over the world. What made the White Supremacist believe that the black man at the Holocaust Museum was a threat to the things he values? What made the Pro-Lifer think that the Abortion Doctor was a threat to life? What made these killers think their victims were The Evil? Someone said so. Someone who they respect, appreciate, value and trust said so. It might have been several people (you know, "everyone thinks so"), it might have been explicit or implicit, it might have been a misunderstanding. Nevertheless, these people were born without thinking it is their duty to free the world from Evil and without believing that a person was Evil. Someone put the idea in their head.
We are all more or less brainwashed. We all have been told what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong, already before we are 5. We have formed the basis of our ethics already at 5. After that EVERYTHING is based on those ethics. one might change one's mind on things, even turn totally around, but all the time the opinion is based on the same ethics we were taught when we were very small. As long as I didn't understand the psychological effects of disciplining children with spanking, I thought moderate spanking was acceptable. One could say I have turned my coat, but in reality what happened is that I am wiser now.
If I have learned that it is acceptable and even desirable for every man to stand for what he believes is right - which is a very typical USonian value - I will take the law in my own hands when I think the Law isn't doing its job properly. If the state condones a serial killer because the people he's killing hasn't born yet, I have to stop him.
If I have learned that I have to defend those who cannot defend themselves by any means, I will do that if I think there are some defenseless people. Who is more defenseless than an unborn baby?
If I have learned that white people are more valuable than everyone else, I don't see killing a non-white person as a murder.
The same way, if I have learned that white people are more dangerous than everyone else, it's easier for me to believe it's a good thing to kill a white person.
If I have learned that violence and killing is an answer, I will try to solve problems through violence and killing people.
Most of the hate speech builds on the GOOD in human beings. Antisemites don't hate Jews because they want to be "bad", but because they see the Jewish people as a serious threat to things they value. Protecting and defending valuable things against any threat is a GOOD thing. People don't hate Jews because they are bad and hateful people, but because they believe the Jews are bad and hateful people. Also, we have learned that "antisemite" is a bad thing, so most antisemites today wouldn't recognize themselves as antisemites. After all, they believe that everything they have heard of Jews, which is what they use as the base to their belief of the Jewish Threat, is TRUE. They aren't PREJUDICED, but KNOWLEDGEABLE, INTELLIGENT AND MORALLY SOUND people. They seriously believe that any sane and ethical person would have the same opinion if they only knew what they know. If you don't agree with them, even after being informed, you are either stupid or evil. The idea that there might be something seriously wrong with the information doesn't even occur to them. Nevertheless, that is the problem.

I think there should be some limits in spreading lies, especially when the risk of the lies causing considerable damage is very high. I believe that the idea of any person being a threat to anything valuable only because of the group he/she belongs to, is an extremely dangerous lie, and I believe the society may go quite far to snip that sick flower already at the bud. It will not be a pretty flower and the fruit is horrifying. It would be as if a pomegranate tree had got some disease and in a branch all the flowers are twisted, wrinkled and abnormal, and if allowed to develop into fruits, the fruits will be hand grenades. Any sane farmer would cut off the branch to save the rest of the tree, and if that wasn't enough, he would cut down the whole tree to save the rest of his orchard.

The problem we have here is who decides what flowers are pretty and what kind of fruits are desirable. Some people think the flower is actually quite interesting and even beautiful, and protest the efforts to uniform the orchard; to limit the speech into politically correct. Some people think it is handy to have grenades grow in a tree. To these people the mere idea of cutting the branch even before the buds open is offensive, dangerous, threatening. They think you want to violate their freedom of expression.

So - does "freedom of speech" have limits? Is it even a freedom if it is limited?

Of course. We are not alone on this planet. My rights end where yours begin.
If a person is allowed to go wherever he wants, except entering someone else's property, he is free to roam the world. No-one questions his freedom to roam the world.
It is not ok for you to go to a supermarket or a restaurant, take food and eat. You have to buy it first. No-one sees that as a violation of your freedom to eat what ever you choose.
I may not go to your wardrobe and just take any clothes I like to wear, especially not without asking you first and without getting your permission to do so.
I may not give religious or sexual education to a minor without her parents consent. No-one sees that as a violation of my right to freely express myself.

Now, no-one stops me from having a blog where I talk about Paganism or where I educate anyone who enters of sex, STDs and preventive aids. So, why should I be stopped from telling people how to build bombs or that USonian Extreme Right-Wing Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian Apologetics (UERFECA) are Evil and that the world would be a better place without them - and that these two are part of the same site, where also exist maps, telephone numbers, adresses and scheduals of the worst of them...

Aah... ;-)

The National Security Legislation would stop me from publishing bomb making instructions, especially if I also indicate they are to be used against "American interests". :-> Now, there the Uerfeca understand fully why some people's freedom of expression SHOULD be limited.

It is against the right to privacy to publish people's telephone numbers, addresses and scheduals. People who wouldn't mind at all the publication of suspected or registered sex offenders' (even if the "registered sex offender" happens to be a 15 years old boy who had sex with his girlfriend) names, adresses and photos, would start screaming if it was THEIR information that was published.

The same way, if an Uerfeca would write a blog entry about how frightening it is when the Muslims protest in London after the bomb attack, or about "the black culture of violence, drugs and chauvinism" - which happens quite often, the other uerfecas would join her and comfort her, and get very upset, if anyone would point out the racism in the post, but when a non-uerfeca posts about the consequences of hate speech - without even pointing fingers at uerfecas - the uerfecas react by accusing her of "anti-white racism", Socialist tyranny and violation of "God-given freedoms".

Frankly - LOOK at the rise of Nazi Germany and what lead to the Holocaust. Ignore that they were Germans, Nazis, ignore the Hitler association, and look at the attitudes, words, instances, ideas - and you will see that WORDS lead to Holocaust. Normal, ordinary people, people like you and me, followed "mere words" and became monsters. REALIZE THAT WE ARE JUST AS HUMAN AS THEY WERE.
We could do just the same for the exact same reasons.


Remove the reasons, not the people! Kill the hate speech, not the people.

More reading of interest:

QandO says "Perhaps We Should Set Up Camps Or Something" - like Uerfecas did with USonians of Japanes decent during the WWII and with Muslims now? In what way is that different? Sure - people like YOU are not an "Enemy of the State". It's only those you don't like, huh?

Mike Vanderboegh writes "Of Civil Wars, Apaches and "Social Futurism" -- "Leave us the hell alone!" and points out the the Conservatives are the majority of USA, and they all have guns, they know how to use them and they are not afraid to use them either, so you better not try to tell them what to do, because they'll shoot first and discuss later.

Jon Monday doesn't understand that one doesn't need to be "a deeply disturbed sociopath with sick mind" to kill another person, in his "Doctor killed by rhetoric"
He gets interesting responses. "A Mother of Lots" doesn't know what "consistent" means. Saying: "all rights to everyone who is born, no rights to anyone who is not born" is quite consistent. It would be inconsistent, if you thought that thou shall not kill unborn babies, their mothers or USonians, but thou shall kill criminals, enemies and anyone threatening you in any way, for example trespassers.

The editor (Andrew Cline?) has no problems in bestowing collective responsibility of all Muslims for 9/11, but when "liberal commentators" accused the aggressive Pro-Life hate speech for the death of Dr. George Tiller, he has enormous problems. He says: "The truth is that the only people responsible for these shootings are the shooters. It's a sad commentary on our overheated political culture that this even needs to be pointed out." It would be nice if "conservative commentators" would remember that when discussing terrorism... :->
He also manages to sweepingly generalize when talking about Liberals while complaining about the selective sweeping generalization of "reactionaries on the left" in "Violent extremists: Spreading the blame around"

James Kirchick tries to say that there is no domestic terrorism in America in "The Religious Right Didn't Kill George Tiller" and that there is no Militant Christian Fundamentalist Extremism, and even if there was, it's not a bad thing, like every other Militant Fundamentalist Extremism is.

At least now I know that I don't hate Christians :-) I hate Christianists.
My Problem with Christianism by Andrew Sullivan

Jesse Jackson writes about "Guns and Hate" and leads me to discover what caused the whining about "Loony Lefties labeling conservatives right wing extremists".

Homeland Security published a report on the rise of the Right Wing Extremist Groups.

"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

To answer a question by rightwing? from wisconsin?, (in comments)

When people are talking about the "Right Wing Extremism", they are actually talking about the Right Wing Extremism, like Ku Klux Klan, Volksfront and other White Supremacist groups and Freemen and other militant Anti-government Right-Wing movements and such. They are not talking about Republicans, Conservatives, Right Wing Moderates or other non-Extreme Right wing people.

Also, they are not talking about the Left-Wing Extremism or Islamic Extremism or other "special interest orientations", because that is off topic in this specific instance. Whether you like to admit it or not, Right Wing Extremism exist, is just as bad as any extremism and it is on rise.

SlantRight is worried about getting labeled Right Wing Extremist. Don't worry.

When the Homeland Security issued a warning concerning returning American veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan as fodder for Right Wing Extremist groups, it wasn't done to label all the veterans who are pro-military and pro-America as a right wing extremists, but to say that when you fougth for your country and come back, tired, most probably suffering from PTSD, perhaps even permanently damaged, physically or mentally, by the experience, and what you come back to is bad economy and status of almost the same as Vietnam war veterans have... That might push any conservative pro-military patriot to join the actual supremacist radical extreme groups and at least TRY to do something to the situation.
Most Conservatives are already VERY suspicious about Obama Administration and everything Liberal, and accuse them of the state of the State, even though they haven't been in power enough to cause the situation... Every sensible person would understand that car industry and national economy doesn't crash in 5 months. It is much more educational to look at the EIGHT YEARS that lead to this situation - and for that we can only blame the darned Republicans.

Listen to a podcast "Is Right-Wing Extremism On The Rise"

*sigh* After reading all this and listening to that, I have to say that the Anarchy of Speech in USA have lead the USonians to loose the understanding of "on topic".
As you MAY say what ever you like, at any time, anywhere, for any reason, you DO say anything that pops into your head, whether it is on topic, appropriate, sensible, rational or considerate. "PC" has become a swearword in stead of being considerate!
One should remember what Laura Ingalls' mother wrote in her little autograph album

If wisdom’s ways you wisely seek,
Five things observe with care,
To whom you speak,
Of whom you speak,
And how and when and where.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Back to Eugenics and Richard Dawkins

Ok, so the Xians don't like Richard Dawkins. That's fine, I don't like him either. But if you wish to criticise his book "God Delusion", do so. There's plenty of things to criticise in the book :-D
Now, when you start spreading malicious gossip and lies about Richard Dawkins and smudge his reputation and persona to counter "God Delusion" then you have stepped over the line.

I read that Richard Dawkins promotes Eugenics. I wasn't surprised, considering that I think Richard Dawkins is very similar to Norman Finkelstein and David Irving. But I always double-check the information, and, sure, he didn't do any such thing.
Richard Dawkins is asking for A DEBATE on Eugenics. He thinks that we are not to define things as bad simply because someone we define as bad defines them as good. Hitler was also vegetarian, and that is not the least "bad". We should be able to justify our judgement.
One could for example discuss why it is ok for humans to breed animals but not humans, and what's the difference in trying to promote certain qualities before birth and after birth.
A blogger with a pseudonyme "Orac" continued by speculating whether the decision of not getting children if you have a defect gene or genetic disease, could be defined as Eugenics. In an earlier article he talks about other forms of Eugenics.

Neither of these men supports Eugenics, but part of the Christian internet community is being very goody-two-shoes while spreadig malicious lies about the men at the same time...

Philip Bell says: "it seems incongruous with his (R.Dawkins') recent support for eugenics, on the grounds that 60 years is enough time to reconsider some of Hitler’s ideas." which is a very devious and nasty way of twisting his words to mean something he didn't mean.
Richard Dawkins said: "I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death... ...we should stop being frightened even to put the question?" The question being the morality of designer babies and enhancing specific qualities in a child.

It's not as bad as Hilary White's version though. She says Richard Dawkins says "Nazi regime’s genocidal project “may not be bad”"!
"Eugenics May Not Be Bad" is the subject line Sunday Herald gave the snippet by Richard Dawkins, not what he said!

On the other hand, Hilary says "eugenics is the social philosophy that the human species or particular races ought to be improved by selective breeding or other forms of genetic manipulation" and someone says eugenics is "pseudo-science".
Neither is true, though. Eugenics is the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits."
It is not "a social philosophy" nor "pseudo-science", just like breeding dogs, cats or cattle is not a philosophy or pseudo-science. Eugenics is simply breeding humans.

Eugenics has a bad name because some states, like Germany and United States, have used it to "improve the race". When you start the road to "intelligently designing" human beings, the people with "undesirable" qualities will be "unnecessary weight". It is acceptable to take care of this "unnecessary weight" as long as the society works well - economically, as well as in other areas. When the society starts working poorly, the "unnecessary weight" is the first to go. It can be seen in our modern "civilized" and "moral" society as well; people who are seen as "weak" for any reason, be it that they are old, sick or handicapped, people who live in slums and edges of the society, will be the first to be ignored. During depression, we see how poor children will get poor quality education, there is no freetime activity, health care is becoming the rich people's privilege, euthanasia is being discussed as a viable alternative, social security rules get tightened... It would be more honest to just shoot them all... and everyone knows who "them" are...

Daniel Macintyre says
"Eugenics is FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG, because it's coercive and it needs a "coordinator" to choose who lives and who dies."
There is nothing in Eugenics that says it MUST be coercive. WHO makes the decision of which genetic qualities are seen as desirable or undesirable is not defined. It can be the state, the church, the elders, the parents... It is also not defined what are the desirable qualities, why one is doing this and how is it to be done.
If you try to influence the genetic qualities of a child before it is born, you are engaging in eugenics.

For example:
A mother saying that her white son may not marry a black woman, because she is worried about her grandchildren - being born from mixed marriage would cause them problems in life.
Parents decide to abort a pregnancy because the child would be handicapped.
A woman chooses the father to her child by his looks, achievements, education and job, either from a sperm donor agency or as a live human being.
We don't call this eugenics, because it is not put in practice by state or another authority.

Now, how is it different in trying to influence the child's qualities after it is born? What gives a parent, a teacher, a coach the right to pick one or two and actively work to support this one on the cost of others? Why would it be morally acceptable to raise children to be athletes, musicians, scientists, what nots, but not breed them for that purpose? why is it morally justifyiable to give some children with certain characteristics, qualities, "talents" better education than to children who lack these? Most children are multitalented and would do quite well in any profession with proper training and possibilities.

Also, I suppose caring for animals' rights is something bad in the eyes of the Christians also... "Common to many utilitarians, Singer is also an ardent animal rights activist". Caring for the wellbeing of animals is not a bad thing, even though they say Hitler did that too. >:->
Peter Singer: “I think it's complete nonsense ... saying we're sacred and should not be changed…to say we've got a perfect genome and there's some sanctity? I'd like to know where that idea comes from because it's utter silliness”
So humans were created perfect but animals not? It's ok to clone sheep, breed dogs, cats and horses, it's ok to take bits and bobs from animals and use them to "improve" other animals, but human animals are "sacred", "perfect" and "untouchable"?
So, Hilary, you are saying that Louise "world's first test-tube baby", her sister Natalie (4th test-tube baby)) and their children, are abominations, because God clearly intended the sisters' mother not to have children? Don't you think God had a reason to block Lesley's fallopian tubes?
then I read “The Inherent Racism of Population Control” and got fuming mad... don't read it. It has absolutely nothing worth reading to say. I have to say something though:

1995 some world food organization says that the world food production has doubled in 40 years... during the same time the world population has MORE than doubled. 1955 the world population was about 2.5 billion, 1995 it was 6 billion. Every 4 seconds a person dies of hunger on this planet. 3 of 4 are children. Might be that this planet COULD produce enough food for the population, but what does it matter, when countries like United States stop producing food because they won't get paid for it, because 90% of world population cannot afford it!
"Grain production has slowed in the United States, but that is because stocks have grown so large that additional production could not be stored"
The "pro-lifers" would do better if they demanded that the state sends the surplus FOR FREE to those who NEED it, instead of complaining about people who educate people about birth controll and STDs.
I think it is morally indefencible to oppose "reproductive health services, contraceptive (birth control) services; emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments; vasectomies and tubal ligations, etc." 100 years ago "reproductive problems" were the biggest cause of deaths to women and children. It is still that in the "third world". "Planned Parenthood" has saved more lives than any prolifers ever.

Another question that arises is the philosophical "eugenics"... the "racism" of mind. Why do you think some philosophies are better than others and should be promoted in the society? Or the belief that some people are worse in God's eyes and deserving their "bad" position in life?

Then I read Vox Day's thoughts on the issue, because Orac was referring to it in his blog entry.

Yeah... I'm not surprised either. It really didn't take long for the Fundamentalist Christian Evangelical Apologetics to start spreading lies about people they don't like.

Now, this Vox asks a question: "on what basis does the atheist prosecute the individual who digs up a few kilos of rotting flesh in order to have sex with it?"
On what basis does a Christian prosecute that individual? The Bible says nothing about respecting cemetaries and graves or about necrophilia.
There are laws on grave peace. Society has made these laws based on consensus, not on what some God might think about the issue. Most people want their beloved ones to rest in peace and they want to be sure their graves won't be disturbed in the future.

I have a question to you, Vox. How does a dead person consent? By not resisting? I have more defined requirements for consent than you do. According to Christians it would have been quite acceptable, even desirable, if Michael Schiavo had had sex with his wife Terri while she was in coma, unconscious and in vegetative state. Would it? Or do you think there's something more in human beings that dictates what is right and wrong than "God says so"? God doesn't say "thou shall not have sex with your unconscious wife", or "thou shall not have sex with your wife while she is unable to refuse you", so what stops a Christian man from having sex with his severely disabled wife?

I know many thinking atheists who are not nihilists. It's not that they are not capable of reason or logical thinking, it's that values and ethics have nothing to do with God. I think some Christians' inability to see why Secular Humanism works says more about them than Secular Humanists... THEY (these Christians) would have sex with rotten corpses if they weren't afraid of Heavenly Punishment, because the only way they can differ "right" from "wrong" is "because God says so"... What makes this really interesting is that God doesn't says "no!" to necrophilia. Of course, if one has to "dig up a few kilos of rotting flesh in order to have sex with it", it might be "grave robbery", and then one isn't to do that because "thou shall not steal". But if you OWN the grave, if it's the body of your wife, then it should be quite ok by the Christian logic.

Also, the Christians don't even do what God says! Jesus, their God, said "Thou shalt not bear false witness"... Claiming that Atheists are Nihilists (or illogical idiots), necrophiles and support Eugenics is indeed bearing false witness of your neighbors. Richard Dawkins and "Orac" do NOT support Eugenics. Charles Darwin was NOT social darwinist, NOR Atheist.

"music lessons are provided with the consent of the parent of the individual, so it's ok" says Vox. "so if eugenics is practiced with the consent of the parents, it's ok too."

One shouldn't treat men and women like dogs because they have HUMAN-given rights. Living with other people require some sort of commonly agreed rules. Democracy was not invented by Christians nor because some God commanded it. Most civil rights are there not given by God but by atheists. "Liberty, brotherhood and equality" is a slogan invented by Atheists.

The Christian God commands his disciples to pay taxes without arquing, protesting and murmuring about it. Luke 20:25: "He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” In every dollar, dime and cent there's "United States of America" written. So why do so many American Christian complain about taxes? Every dollar they own belongs to the United States of America, according to Jesus.

Vox also writes a response to Orac

Well... actually, I don't think Orac was that far off. Sure, slightly exaggerating, but saying that an Atheist is either a Nihilist or a hypocritical, illogical idiot is much worse exaggeration. After all Vox says that an Atheist shouldn't see anything wrong in necrophilia, and the step from thinking necrophilia is ok to being necrophiliac isn't long. Of course, they are not the same, but, hey, if you can't understand how people who invented democracy and secular judicial system would be able to prosecute people violating secular laws, how would you see the difference in thinking something is ok and doing it?

Nevertheless, to answer your question, no. The example you give is not antisemitic... per se... Using the question "why it is acceptable for the Israelis to oppress Palestinians, but not for Europeans to oppress Jews" as an example of questions one might ask when discussing antisemitism is antisemitic though. The idea it conveys is that the Israelis are Jews and they do what they do because they are Jewish and as the representator of the Jewish people and it equates Holocaust with the current political situation in Israel and Palestine and the Palestinians with the European Jews. The question is also illogical by assuming that the state of Israel oppresses Palestinians and that it is acceptable. But, never mind. The statement in itself is not antisemitic, and Richard Dawkins original post is not pro-Eugenics.

I haven't read many of Dawkins' books, because I think they are badly written and illogical. Nevertheless, I don't think one has to be "overly suspicious of the man" to suspect that he would be delighted to head up a department of evolutionary eugenics at Oxford or anywhere else. I think one has to be prejudiced and seriously dislike the man to suspect that.

Then Vox claims that "Orac goes on to discuss a theoretical justification of voluntary eugenics" which Orac does not do. Orac doesn't even "skate lightly over the coercive element inherent in the term "breeding". He says loud and clear that Eugenics is nothing but breeding, how ever voluntary it seems to be. Really, I wonder what Vox is reading and reacting to, because it's not what Orac writes in his blog.

Now - why does Vox find it necessary (and probably humorous) to insult Shannon Doherty is beyond me. I don't know what Shannon has done to Vox to deserve public mocking due to something she cannot do anything about - her asymmetrical face - which, BTW, is something EVERY HUMAN BEING HAS. I suppose she "deserves" it for being so ugly she makes Vox puke. We really should lock all the ugly people in, so that they wouldn't offend sensitive men like Vox.

Really, might be that "not every inquiry by an influential public intellectual is an innocent one", but one should also remember that one is to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Richard Dawkins most surely has ulterior motifs to bring up the question. He is poking the wasps' nest and the wasps react, always stronger than necessary, always with the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude. Richard Dawkins doesn't like organized religion, especially Christianity, so he's a bad guy and everything he does must be bad. So if he asks why is it not ok to even discuss Eugenics, it MUST be because he is a Nazi and a proof of that he both digs up rotten corpses to have sex with AND burns Christian babies in his heating furnace as part of the Black Masses of his Satanic cult coven.

Anyway, Daniel Macintyre disagrees with me and thinks Vox is a genius and Orac is an idiot.

Orac already told everyone why Eugenics is wrong, Daniel. But let's see what Daniel says.

"Now, I have no problem with people trying to choose the best spouses possible for themselves"
"Each person tries to improve the species starting with his own offspring."
That's a form of eugenics, Daniel. There is nothing in the definition of eugenics that demands some central authority to force their decision on people. The definition of eugenics is breeding, choosing the parents to produce an offspring with desired qualities, be it intelligence, beauty, what ever.

"Eugenics = Socialism" Huh? What the heck does he think Socialism is?

Most people make wrong choices. Most people choose a person that in some way reminds them of their mother- or fatherfigure as their spouse. Some people choose no spouse at all, just make babies with the "best genetic material available" (genetics), some try to choose intellectually. Some people are so fucked up they never dare to seek a mate or will accept anything because they don't think they are worth anything better. Some are so afraid of loneliness they take anything. Humans are not animals. We have the whole darned psychological ballast.
The "success rate" to people "choosing the best for themselves" is like 50%, probably even worse, because people's happiness in their marriages and relationships isn't being measured. Interestingly enough in cultures where people do NOT choose for themselves, the happiness in marriage is higher than in cultures where people choose. It is a huge relief to be able to blame someone else for the mistakes...;-) Joke aside, I live in a Socialist country. Sure, it's "soft Socialism", but nevertheless, people in Sweden are happier than people in USA. So, according to Daniel, Eugenics is a good thing...

"the normal course of social evolution" is social darwinism, which doesn't work. If you leave the responsibility of the society to the "fittest", you end up with a dictatorship and - big scale eugenics. Just look at Germany in the 30's :->

We don't live in a jungle, Daniel, where we need to fight for our survival. We live in a society where everyone is taken care of and seen as a valuable part of the society, each one according their specific qualities and resources. The strong ones will protect the weak ones, who will cook tasty food, decorate the cave and in the evening tell interesting stories and thus highten the life standard. If the strong ones leave the weak ones to die, because they are weak, and that's the "natural selection" and "their natural rights", the art will vanish quicker than tigers.
Stephen Hawkins need constant care. He wouldn't live a day without someone choosing someone else's best over her own best. Thankfully someone does. Because of this person chooses someone else's best over her own, the society benefits too - you, me, everyone.

Now - nothing stops a "central authority" from choosing all kinds of qualities to be "desirable". Nothing says that a "central authority" must be limited in its choices, not consider all kinds of variations and possible situations where the designed person would find itself and consider possible genetic problems, so that is not an argument against eugenics. In fact, that would be an argument FOR eugenics - it is possible that a central authority would "rescue" genes that would be lost in the "natural selection". A shy person, a person bullied at school might not even dare to seek a partner. (For exampel both Tyra Banks and Claudia Schiffer were both considered ugly at school - how many pretty girls are hiding behind dirt and fat due to the bullying? How much intelligence is lost because it was inside an ugly girl? How many "good" genes were lost because they were hidden inside a "looser"?)
Frankly, Daniel, you are doing an excellent job in DEFENDING eugenics!

"The other issue of implementation is unintended consequences. Often, selecting for a desirable trait can lead to consequences that make the net gain less substantial or even possibly a loss."
As if that doesn't happen in "natural selection"? Have you seen some mutts?

I also disagree with you about our greatest strength :-) I would say some of our greatest strenghts are curiosity, creativity, the capasity to socialize and kindness... now, if I disagree with you, I'm sure a lot of other do too, and a lot of people disagree with me. It makes sense that we would all work for selecting the specific qualities we appreciate best. Then the social conscience kicks in... Of course I would try to make the best choice for the best of the society and humankind, which means that I would consider not only what is the greatest strenght but also what is NECESSARY, and also, what is DESIRABLE... beauty would be the first quality to disappear, because it's totally useless in a society with eugenics, besides the plastic surgery is very much developed now-a-days. We can MAKE the people pretty, what ever their genes would have caused they look...

Now, about the Azhkenazi Jews... are they an example of "natural selection" or "eugenics"?

What ever. Anyway, read the second and third part of the discussion. It's just as muddled as the first one, and equally entertaining.

Friday, June 5, 2009

more on ACIM (A Course In Miracles)

I don't like it, but I found out that some born-again Christians like it even less. I found this article by Warren Smith

Warren claims to have been one of the ACIM disciples, but reading what he writes, I doubt he understood much of what ACIM teaches. Not that I do either, considering that I am struggling trying to understand the first lesson :-D But even though I don't much like the Greek Scriptures and Jesus and his teachings and all that, there is one thing I agree full-heartedly. That is "you know the tree by its fruits". The Greek Scriptures also say "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." Now, I see that in Marianne Williamson, but not in Warren Smith. I think Marianne is one of the sweetest, kindest, gentlest people on this Earth and when I read her book, I felt love to everyone and everything. ME! I who am "allergic" to spiritual love, Christianity, Jesus and all that! Warren is just complaining, whining, arguing, sowing hatred and distrust. I wonder where in the Greek Scriptures he finds Jesus saying "persecute those who are not with me" and "it's ok to do against what I told you to do, when it's for harming your enemy". As far as I know, Jesus told his disciples to love their enemy as they love their family. As far as I know Jesus told his disciples to forgive everything, and not to resist "an ill-doer". As far as I know Jesus told the parabel of the Samaritan to show that he doesn't give a dime about what you SAY. It's all in DOING his will.

And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?”
And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
Matt 19: 16-19

Warren, if you wish to enter into life, do not bear false witness! Quoting a person out of context is bearing false witness.

You claim that ACIM says:

“There is no sin. . . "
A “slain Christ has no meaning.”
“The journey to the cross should be the last ‘useless journey.”
“Do not make the pathetic error of ‘clinging to the old rugged cross.’”
“The Name of Jesus Christ as such is but a symbol... It is a symbol that is safely used as a replacement for the many names of all the gods to which you pray.”
“God is in everything I see.”
“The recognition of God is the recognition of yourself.”
“The oneness of the Creator and the creation is your wholeness, your sanity and your limitless power.”
“The Atonement is the final lesson he [man] need learn, for it teaches him that, never having sinned, he has no need of salvation.”

and that "most Christians recognize that these teachings are the opposite of what the Bible teaches."

Ok... let's look at it.

Yes, ACIM claims there is no sin. ACIM says that only what is from God, what is created by God, what is of Love exists, is real and true. Everything else is an illusion, a nightmare, something we have created ourselves, a lie. It is not real, it doesn't exist, it is not. Sin is absence of Love, it is a lie, thus it is not real, thus it doesn't exist.
You could also say this by saying: "our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin."

The whole quote and context is:

"Let me remember there is no sin"

Sin is the only thought that makes the goal of God seem unobtainable. What else could blind us to the obvious, and make the strange and the distorted seem more clear? What else but sin engenders our attacks? What else but sin could be the source of guilt, demanding punishment and suffering? And what but this could be the source of fear, obscuring God’s creation; giving love the attributes of fear and of attack?

“Father, I would not be insane today. I would not be afraid of love, nor seek for refuge in its opposite. For love can have no opposite. You are the Source of everything that is. And everything that is remains with You and You with it.”

So, in what way is that "opposite of what the Bible teaches"?

Yes, ACIM says "a slain Christ has no meaning"... But the context is "the promise of resurrection". "Let us not spend this holy week brooding on the crucifixion of God's Son, but happily in the celebration of his release." "A slain Christ has no meaning. But a RISEN Christ becomes the symbol of the Son of God's forgiveness upon himself; the sign he looks upon himself as healed and whole."
The death of Jesus was meaningless WITHOUT THE RESURRECTION, says ACIM. Even the Bible says so: "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith also is in vain."

Then the next two quotes in context:

"Chesterton wrote an excellent description of Cervantes and his perception of his "unheroic hero," a view of man which the ego tolerates all too frequently, but the Soul NEVER countenances:
"And he sees across a weary land, a straggling road in Spain,
Up which a lean and foolish knight forever rides in vain."

Do not embark on foolish journeys because they are indeed in vain. The ego may will them because the ego IS both lean and foolish. But the Soul CANNOT embark on them because it is forever UNwilling to depart from its Foundation. The journey to the cross should be the LAST foolish journey for every mind. Do not dwell upon it, but dismiss it as accomplished. If you can accept that as YOUR OWN last foolish journey, you are free also to join My Resurrection. Human living has indeed been needlessly wasted in repetition compulsion. It re-enacts the Separation, the loss of power, the foolish journey of the ego in its attempt at reparation, and finally the crucifixion of the body, or death. Repetition compulsions can be endless, unless they are given up by an act of will, or, more properly as active creation. Do not make the pathetic human error of "clinging to the old rugged cross." The only message of the crucifixion is in respect for man's ability to OVERCOME the cross. Unless he does so, he is free to crucify himself as often as he chooses. But this was NOT the gospel I intended to offer him."

He is obviously not talking about the Crucifixion and Atonement as "useless journey", but about the man's desire to engage in irrelevant things. As far as I understand it, Jesus already did that so that no-one else needs to. People are to accept the gift and follow Jesus IN LIFE, not in death.

"The Name of Jesus Christ as such is but a symbol. But it stands for love that is not of this world. It is a symbol that is safely used as a replacement for the many names of all the gods to which you pray. It becomes the shining symbol for the Word of God, so close to what it stands for that the little space between the two is lost, the moment that the Name is called to mind. Remembering the Name of Jesus Christ is to give thanks for all the gifts that God has given you. And gratitude to God becomes the way in which He is remembered, for love cannot be far behind a grateful heart and thankful mind. God enters easily, for these are the true conditions for your homecoming."

It doesn't say that all gods are the same. Even though, when there IS only ONE God, you would be praying to God, which ever name you use - none of us KNOWS God's name anyway. It MIGHT be Saraswati, Abu or Quetzacotl, we don't KNOW. Just because some people use that name when they pray to God, doesn't automatically mean it's wrong. They might have guessed right. Weirder things have happened. The Jewish tradition says God has 72 names, and Islam says God has 99 names.
What it says is that if you have been praying to false gods and transfer your faith from them to Jesus, it's a good thing. That it is safe to pray to Jesus, more safe than praying to any of the gods you USED to pray. Isn't this exactly what the Christians teach?
It's not the NAME that is important. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and if Jesus had been named Immanuel or Chizqiyahu, he would have been the same still. Or do you believe names have magical powers and numerology and other such things, that would be the only reason to get upset when someone says that the name is not important in itself? Really, if his name had been Chizqiyahu, in the story the angel had told Mary and Joseph to name the child so.

"God is in everything I see"

The main message of ACIM is that everything that is real is created by God. God hasn't created anything without a purpose. So everything real has a purpose. This is what is meant with "God is in everything I see", not some pantheistic idea of there being a god in statues, tables and clothehangers. We can see God's fingerprints in the whole Creation and every part of it.

Also, Ephesians 4:6
"one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."

"The recognition of God is the recognition of yourself"

Genesis 1:27 says:
"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him"
Genesis 2:7 says:
"Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 and 27 says:
"For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit."
"Now you are Christ’s body..."

"The oneness of the Creator and the creation is your wholeness, your sanity and your limitless power"

Again, you have to remember that ACIM is based on the idea that only what God created is real, only Love is real, everything else is illusions, fantasy, your imagination, your nightmares, illustrated fears. God is Love and the creation is an expression of this Love, and just as every artwork has something from the artist itself in it, so has God's Creation something of God in it.

" Two men talked among themselves and decided they did not need God anymore.
So they went up on a mountain and called God.
He came down, and they to Him: "We have decided that we no longer need You at all."
God looked at them and said: "I think you Do need me."
The two men said: "Nope. We don't, and to prove it we are going to have a man-making contest."
God said: "Okay, fine by me."
One of the men bent over and picked up a fistful of dirt, at which point God stopped him and said: "Uh-uh. Use your own dirt.""

God is one, Creation is one, the Creation is part of God and God and Creation are one as body is one, I am part of Creation, so I am part of God, one with God.
Everything else is an illusion, not true, a lie, and to build your life on lies is insane. I am not separated from God, I am united with God... United - made into one. As I do God's will, God will also help me with all his might... anything else would be insane.

So the idea of that this would be about people using the Course in Miracles to living an illusion that they are all-powerful Gods creating "miracles" to get money and power and sex and what not means that the person hasn't got the idea with Course in Miracles at all.

So - Warren's page tells more about him and why he was into New Age than about ACIM...

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Course of Miracles

I heard of the Course of Miracles, of course, saw the big books on the shelf of the bookstore, heard a lot of amazing things told about it. I read Marianne Williamson's Return to Love and loved it. I have a tiny book of quotes from Course of Miracles in my handbag. So - I was really excited to find the book in our local library.
I started to read... and I am disappointed, suspicious, reluctant, displeased, upset... It's like reading Neale Donald Walsh' Conversations with God.

I am disappointed because the book is a weird combination of New Age and very conservative Christianity with a twist of Indian philosophies.

"Miracles bear witness to truth. They are convincing because they arise from conviction. Without conviction they deteriorate into magic, which is mindless, and therefore destructive; or rather, the uncreative use of mind"
I am a witch. I believe in magic with every fiber of my being. So I am "mindless and therefore destructive"? And I use my mind uncreatively? Insulting people won't help them understand what you are trying to say.

Magic IS creation. Creation is magic. Magic is bending the reality to fit your idea of what the reality should be. Praying is magic. Positive thinking is magic. Affirmations are magic. The Secret is magic. The Law of Attraction is magic. Miracles are magic.
The idea of what the reality should be is put in people by God, the ultimate Magician, the Creator.

This is what I believe, and these are the words I choose to use to express my beliefs. I KNOW I am right, and this is Truth.
At the same time, *I* am fully aware of that you might choose different words to express your beliefs, and *I* know that just because you use different words it doesn't mean that there would be anything wrong with your understanding of the Truth. Now - what gives you the right to question my words and my understanding? That is just the sort of arrogance, ignorance, intolerance and pride I hate with certain people...

Also - one of the things I hated with Conversations with God was that Neale Donald Walsh seemed to be flabberghasted by the FACT that God is there, a turn away... we can't see Her, because we are looking in the wrong direction, we can't talk with Her, because we believe She doesn't listen or won't answer anyway, so we don't even try; we can't feel Her, because we won't erect our arm and touch Her. I am sitting here in the presence of God and I feel it, I sense it, I know it... Nevertheless, Neale didn't know this. He wrote SEVERAL books about the subject and people are all amazed and blah blah blah...

But the Course of Miracles states: "without me (Jesus), the distance between God and man would be too great for you to encompass"


I am in direct contact with God. I talk with God every day. I am part of God's creation and there is no doubt in my mind of that God loves ME the way I am, that in God's eyes I am perfect, just the way She intended me to be, and there is NO --- DISTANCE BETWEEN ME AND GOD!!!

My mother - a devote Christian - laughed when I told her that I don't NEED Jesus to die for me. Poor woman... I am fully prepared to take any and every consequence of my sins myself, thank you, and I don't want anyone to come and try to steal my obligations. I am not afraid of God. God loves me, God knows exactly, better than I do, why I did what I did, God knows what goes on inside my head, mind, spirit, soul and heart - inside me. What do I have to fear? MY God is just and loving, I deserve everything She gives me, good and bad, and I have NEVER got anything but good from Her. Why would everything change when I die? Are you suggesting that life is some sort of refuge from GOD? That She is a devious bitch, lullying me into false security just to give me hell when I leave this life? No wonder you are all afraid to die! But - that's your God, not mine, and I assume you understand - if you think a little - why I am not interested in changing my religion...

But, but... *sigh* I am going to read this book and try my best to translate it into my language and find the reason to why I was so interested in it, why I was so excited to find it and why I carried it home with joy... but I have to say, it's one of the hardest things I have ever done.

Dang, I should be writing these books!