"God is a concept ......"

[H2O Man]

(1) "God is a concept by which we measure our pain." -- John Lennon

I read a thread on the relationship between suffering and redemption this morning. It is an interesting topic, and I'd like to approach it from a different angle. This is a topic that should be of interest to people from a variety of different belief systems, and I hope that this may offer people the opportunity to discuss suffering as having the potential to bring about good.

The topic should be as important to atheists as theists. I do not think that opinions on religion need to play a defining role. Yet I recognize that there is a division between some DUers from the various schools of thought, and so in an offer to find a position of mutual respect, I am not going to butt in on the other thread.


(2) "Unearned suffering is redemptive." -- Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The concept of "unearned suffering's" redemptive power is closely associated with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. For many Americans, it was during his "I Have a Dream" speech that they first heard this revolutionary preacher state, "...You have been veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive."

King was clearly referring to a specific type of suffering. And while some may take offense in his use of the word "faith," it is important that we keep in mind that Rev. King was struggling to free all people from a perverted interpretation of the gospel. His efforts were not geared to simply help black people, or Christians, but all people .... including those who had the essence of their being contaminated with bitterness and hatred.

In his 1960 essay "Suffering and Faith," Rev. King wrote of his personal struggle to keep from becoming bitter as a black man in America. It led him to recognize that "unearned suffering is redemptive." He notes that if suffering is not properly channeled, it leads to bitterness and destruction. Clearly, King recognizes that redemption is not the only potential result of unearned suffering, but rather is the best one. Those who admire Rev. King -- theist and atheist alike -- marvel not only at King's insight, but his dedication to putting his belief system to the test.

Rev. King learned much of this doctrine of non-violence from Mohandas K. Gandhi. In his essay "An Experiment in Love," King quotes the Mahatma: "Things of fundamental importance to people are not secured by reason alone, but have to be purchased by their suffering. Suffering is infinitely more powerful than the law of the jungle for converting the opponent and opening his ears which are otherwise shut to the voice of reason." It is worth noting that Gandhi identified himself at times as an atheist; at other times as a theist; and frequently as both. Like King, his goal was not to promote a religion to power: it was to create social justice for all.

Thus, in "Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience," King states that, "unearned suffering is redemptive, and that suffering may serve to transform the social situation." Further, in his account of the Montgomery experience, Rev. King states that black Americans could not afford to allow unearned suffering to cause them to become bitter, and that "(t)o suffer in a righteous cause is to grow to our humanities' full stature. It is becoming clear that the Negro is in for a season of suffering."


(3) "Bitterness contaminates the vessel which contains it." -- Rubin Carter

Surely not all suffering is experienced as part of a noble cause. Yet because there is some suffering in every individual's life, it is worthwhile to examine unearned suffering on the individual level. The other thread which I read this morning reminded me, in a curious manner, of a book that a friend of mine is writing.

The book has to do with what I think is the ultimate in unearned suffering: child abuse. The author, a PhD who teaches at a local university, examines the power of forgiveness. It is important to remember that Gandhi and King both promoted forgiveness as a necessary part of movements to transform a sick society. The author of this book was considering the power of forgiveness in the context of adult survivors of severe abuse.

One of the people she interviewed was Rubin Carter, who had marched with King in 1963 in Washington, DC. He stated that she "raises an interesting question. Like pain is pain, suffering is suffering -- whether from being wrongly imprisoned, wrongly placed in a concentration camp, or wrongly abused as a child. But pain is a component of suffering, not suffering itself. There are no degrees of suffering."

Carter told the author how being wrongly imprisoned had made him bitter, and how that bitterness ate away at all of his other qualities. And then one day, when being taken for a physical exam after 30 days in the darkness of solitary confinement, he saw his reflection in a mirror. He describes it as seeing a "grotesque image. I saw the face of hatred, a monster, and that monster was me. I realized I was not hurting them (those who railroaded him, taking him away from his wife and daughter). They were hurting me. .... How could I forgive them?"

Carter spoke of the influence of the writings of Vicktor Frankl, a holocaust survivor. Frankl was able to survive the terrors of the concentration camp in large part by his insights on the power of unearned suffering. His redemption was not as a result of the concentration camp, but in spite of it. He did not allow the experience to make him bitter and hateful.

In "Beyond Belief," author Elaine Pagals addresses what I think is the ultimate horror and cause of the most profound suffering: the death of a child. Years ago, a tragic accident killed one of my friends. His mother died a few years later, as a result of grief. She was a beautiful soul, and was not bitter .... just wounded beyond description. When I read Pagals' work, I was reminded of my friend's mother.It would be wrong to say that the death of Elaine Pagals' child was in any way other than tragic. Yet Pagals was able to survive where others do not, by finding some meaning to her unearned suffering.

My brothers are both atheists. I recall that one was offended by some people who described the finding of Elizabeth Smart some nine months after she was kidnapped as "God's will." He said by this logic, God likes some children more than others. I believe that this takes us back to the two threads on DU religion & theology that compared Paul's Christianity with the acual teachings of Christ. Those who believe that God preferred Elizabeth Smart would seem to fit the Paul doctrine; while those with greater insight, such as Pagals, find understanding in the Gnostic Gospels.

Others survive unearned suffering in other ways. We know that Robert Kennedy, an Irish Catholic, scrawled on a paper after his brother's death, "The innocent suffer -- how can that be possible and God be just. All things are to be examined & called into question. There are no limits set to thought." Many, though certainly not all, find the journey that RFK took after Dallas to be one of the most important parts of the 1960s.

And that brings us full circle. On the night that Rev. King was murdered, Robert Kennedy addressed a crowd that was stunned by the bitterness and hatred that was tearing this nation apart at its seams. Kennedy quoted Aeschylus: "God, whose law it is that he who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom by the awful grace of God."

Did King's unearned suffering benefit humanity? Did his sacrifice make America a better place to live? I can't answer for anyone but myself, but I certainly think so.

[Lerkfish]

1. wow, really provoking post...

I'm at work so time limits my response, so I'll opt for brevity...

I have no problem with the concept UNEARNED suffering resulting in redemption (or maturation of potential), if properly understood and utilized.

However, I'm reminded of the book of Job, where he was definitely enduring unearned suffering, and the variety of responses that both he and his friends and family gave him. Some interpreted all suffering as deserved "you must have sinned to suffer so". there are other angles, but having suffered a great deal of loss in my own life, I know how I view Job has changed as events in my life have changed both me and my attitudes about suffering.

When young, I bought into that magical notion that all things work together for good, for them that love the lord and are called according to his purpose..but I vaguely interpreted that to mean religion was insurance against hardship...but as hardships piled up, I realized no amount of religion PREVENTS the vagaries of life from occuring, the rain falls on the just and the unjust.

Rather, the spinning grinding wheel of life spins randomly, but it is our attitude (angle) towards that spin which either makes us sharper implements or dulls us beyond all usefulness. If we view the grinding wheel (life) as a constant or immutable force (meaning though things happen somewhat randomly, they cannot be directly controlled), then the only controllable thing is ourselves, and how we approach the wheel as to how much it matures or defeats us.

outta time....more later

[trotsky]

2. "a perverted interpretation of the gospel"

Actually, the bible lays out some pretty specific guidelines on how to treat one's slaves, and includes allowances for murdering them if need be. It never - not once - comes out and says "Slavery is wrong."

So it's kind of hard to call support of slavery "a perverted interpretation of the gospel," I think.

Anyway, regarding suffering, I don't think there's any doubt that some people are motivated by it, and that sometimes, good can come as a result. Lots of people suffered from polio, so we created a vaccine 50 years ago, and that's good - but it did nothing to alleviate the suffering of those already imprisoned in an iron lung.

Taking the approach of, "Well, there's suffering, but a lot of good can come from some of it, a lot of lessons can be learned, so we should be thankful to God" just rings hollow for me.

[H2O Man]

3. You would need

to know what the word "gospel" means.

[Lerkfish]

4. true, that.

[H2O Man]

5. Yes, it's very true.

I suppose that if one does not know the bible well enough to be able to identify what the gospels are, they should be excused for confusing King and Gandhi as people who are okay with other people's suffering, and unwilling to try to do something about it.

[trotsky]

6. I didn't expect such snarkiness from you, H2O Man.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John

Show me where in those 4 books it expressly prohibits slavery.

[H2O Man]

7. Please.

You made a mistake.

[trotsky]

8. Fine. Educate me.

Show me where - ANYWHERE - that the bible prohibits slavery.

[H2O Man]

9. Perhaps

you need to reconsider.

[trotsky]

10. Perhaps

you could just make your point rather than playing this silly game.

[H2O Man]

11. I made my point

in the OP. Your slavery comments indicate you don't understand what I was saying. That's of no concern to me. Some things people get, or they don't get. No problem.

[trotsky]

12. And you missed mine.

In trying to make YOUR point, I wanted to have you clarify one item that you said. Either you can't, or you just don't want to. Oh well.

[H2O Man]

13. No. I didn't miss yours.

But, uh, trotsky, in an essay about King, Gandhi, Lennon, RFK, Pagals, and Smart ..... where did you get slavery from? How can you expect me to act like you are making a serious point? It's not that I don't see what you're saying, it's that it has nothing to do with what I wrote about.

[trotsky]

14. On the contrary, it's quite central to what you wrote (about MLK).

You said:

it is important that we keep in mind that Rev. King was struggling to free all people from a perverted interpretation of the gospel

The inequality of blacks and the civil rights issues of the 1950s and 1960s directly stemmed from slavery, did they not?

[H2O Man]

15. The only

thing about slavery in this thread was your insisting the gospels gave directions okaying it, and your attempt to avoid admitting you made an error. It's not the end of the world to be wrong.

[trotsky]

16. Um...

No, I said:

Actually, the bible lays out some pretty specific guidelines on how to treat one's slaves, and includes allowances for murdering them if need be. It never - not once - comes out and says "Slavery is wrong."

I didn't say "the gospels gave directions okaying it", now did I?

Perhaps you could admit an error in misquoting me?

[H2O Man]

17. Well, trotsky

let me quote your next sentence: "So it's kind of hard to call support of slavery 'a perverted interpretation of the gospel,' I think."

Again, my essay had nothing to do with slavery. But because it is of such interest to you, do you believe that men like King, Gandhi, and Kennedy advocated slavery? Do you think they advocated that people accept injustice? Do you see them as promoting a "suffer quietly, it's your lot in life"? Is that really what you think?

[trotsky]

19. Don't you dare weasel out like that.

You coyly suggested I made a "mistake," then misquoted me to "prove" it, and when presented with evidence to the contrary, launch into unrelated questions about what I "really think."

I'm disappointed, H2O Man. I expected a lot more from you.

[H2O Man]

21. I quoted the sentence

that you choose not to. You have been focused on the issue of slavery and the gospel. It has been central to your contribution to this thread. But it has nothing to do with the discussion I started. Hence, you are being silly when you throw out words like "don't you dare weasel out."

[trotsky]

22. In my initial post on this thread,

I took issue with one statement you made - that MLK "was struggling to free all people from a perverted interpretation of the gospel."

I understood "a perverted interpretation of the gospel" to mean slavery, since Jim Crow, segregation, and everything else that the civil rights movement fought against arose from slavery. I then pointed out that nowhere in the bible does it prohibit slavery, and in fact in many places it condones it, by laying out rules on how to treat one's slaves. Since nothing in the bible (OR the gospels) prohibits slavery, I just wanted to know how you justified it as being a "perverted interpretation" to believe that slavery was OK.

You responded by insinuating I'm too stupid to understand what "gospel" means (even though "the gospels" are a subset of "the bible"), then you went on to further speculate that I must think MLK and Gandhi "are okay with other people's suffering."

Later, realizing your error in the bible/gospel confusion, you changed tactics, saying that slavery had nothing to do with your original post about suffering. Well, of course. I just wanted to correct (or get clarification on) that one little point first. And as I said before, you apparently either can't, or won't, provide it.

Let me give you an out: when you said that MLK "was struggling to free all people from a perverted interpretation of the gospel," what did you mean, if not the effects of slavery?

[Lerkfish]

23. If it helps,

I edited to add: this is intended to be directed to trotsky, but for some reason it ended up in response to H20man, sorry for the confusion:

here is a good definition of gospel (emphasis mine):
-------------
gospel


a word of Anglo-Saxon origin, and meaning "God's spell", i.e., word of God, or
rather, according to others, "good spell", i.e., good news. It is the rendering
of the Greek _evangelion_, i.e., "good message." It denotes (1) "the welcome
intelligence of salvation to man as preached by our Lord and his followers.


(2.) It was afterwards transitively applied to each of the four histories of
our Lord's life, published by those who are therefore called 'Evangelists',
writers of the history of the gospel (the evangelion).

(3.) The term is often
used to express collectively the gospel doctrines; and 'preaching the gospel'
is often used to include not only the proclaiming of the good tidings, but the
teaching men how to avail themselves of the offer of salvation, the declaring
of all the truths, precepts, promises, and threatenings of Christianity." It is
termed "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24), "the gospel of the
kingdom" (Matt. 4:23), "the gospel of Christ" (Rom. 1:16), "the gospel of peace
(Eph. 6:15), "the glorious gospel," "the everlasting gospel," "the gospel of
salvation" (Eph. 1:13).



Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

----------

My definition would be: Gospel, in essence, means good news, or the good news of salvation....meant as a joyous proclamation of the redemption of man, of the positive potential of achieving grace (unearned redemption not by individual works or piety of the human, but the forgiving lovingkindness of the Creator in overlooking or erasing the penalty for their sins

In other words, a perversion of the gospel message would be to inform people that they must be shackled by sin or be punished without hope of redemption.

I think that's helpful in understanding the issue that was attempted to be brought up by the original poster.

in the context of the original essay, "gospel" was not referring to the entire bible (which would be inaccurate), nor to the books of matthew mark luke and john (sometimes referred to as the gospels). They are referred to as the gospels because they CONTAIN the good news, the proclamation of the deliverance from sin and the wages of sin.
I think the point was, unless you understood how gospel was being used, here, then you were going to be lost down a needless rabbit hole of misperception and derail this thread into an area that was not the original intent. This appears to be either an unwelcome habit or talent, of bogging down worthwhile threads in semantics and completely missing the intended point, much as you attempted to derail the thread I started previously. Yes, I misunderstood why the term "belief" was offensive, but once it was pointed out, and I then understood, and apologized and attempted to return my thread back to the intended course before the derailment, then the thread should have returned to the worthwhile discourse, but some were only interested in continuing to derail it.

Its sad, because a great deal of worthwhile discussion COULD result from these threads, but that tends to be prevented. I do not understand, really, why that needs to ALWAYS be the case, but...(shrugs).

[H2O Man]

25. Good morning, Mr. Trotsky!

Sometimes a good night's sleep helps me to see things clearer. I have reviewed what you posted, and then what I posted. And -- on my comment on your comment -- I indeed erred. I combined two sentences, which created a false impression of exactly what you did say. For that, I do apologize.

What I should have said, and which I believe is accurate, is that those two sentences seem to imply that you believe the gospels condone the slavery that you correctly note is in another book of the bible.

[H2O Man]

26. Part two

I did not have slavery in mind in any way. I do not think that it has any direct relationship to what I was speaking about. Like any other human situation, one could apply lessons regarding unearned suffering to it. But it wasn't what I was talking about.

It is indeed important to appreciate the connection between events in history, and one era surely leads to the next. Black Americans did well to understand the historic relationship between slavery and civil rights. And it was Minister Malcolm X, not Rev. King, who was primarily able to help those at the lowest levels of society see that they were still slaves.

But human beings can be slaves to different forces. If a person is unabled to deal with the present, and is only able to function by pointing a finger towards the past, they are a slave to the past. It has nothing to do with intelligence.

A person can also be a slave to their own passions, to substances, to wealth, and to anger and bitterness. They can still be a slave, and it has nothing to do with intelligence.

King's noble experiment was geared not to address the system of slavery that ended a century before; he was addressing the current issues of the day. He has been compared to Moses, leading his people to a promised land, but that is not accurate. King was attempting to free the white people from their hatred, from their bitterness, and from their hostility. He did not say they were stupid; he did say that their negative emotions kept them from seeing the truth.

King was applying Gandhian tactics, not Moses' tactics. And he indeed did so because he was inspired by the gospel. And he used the gospel to try to reach what he called "the soul of America." And he seemed pretty clear, as did Gandhi, that the gospels do not condone submission to an oppressive system.

So, no, my essay -- and especially the sentence you quoted -- had nothing at all to do with slavery. It was not even a tiny bit was I was referring to. Hence I believed that your comments were an attempt to divert attention to what I was saying, and a crude attempt to put me in a position to defend the bible, which I do not do. And I think my questions to you are indeed valid. Very much so.

[trotsky]

28. So what exactly is the "perverted interpretation of the gospel"?

Hatred, bitterness, and hostility?

In that case, I'd still say it doesn't make sense, because those emotions all stemmed from a belief that blacks were inferior, meant to serve us in a capacity like the bible notes and condones. Civil rights workers, the federal government, the courts - all were viewed by racist whites as anti-God, anti-Christian because they were ordering blacks to be treated as equals.

I don't need you to defend the bible, I'm just trying to get at what you consider "the gospel" and how you determine what a "perverted interpretation" of it is. Every Christian seems to have their own methodology - I find it interesting to learn about each one.

Many of your questions in response to me were rather facetious in nature - in particular the section where you ended with "Is that really what you think?" I did not feel I would dignify such questions with an answer, but if you really need me to do that then yes, I admire theists like MLK and (a)theists like Gandhi, and I'm glad that they could manage to take strength from suffering and help alleviate the suffering of others. Were there any other questions I have left unanswered?

[H2O Man]

39. Well, that's interesting.

You believe that the "hatred, bitterness, and hostility" are emotions that "all stem from a belief that blacks were inferior, meant to serve us in a capacity like the bible notes and condones." I recognize that you have as much right to your opinion on this as do I, but I think it is possible that it makes more sense to put it in the opposite order. A person or a people would have to have the negative emotions to begin with -- such as hostility and hatred and fear -- in order to see anyone different as being of lesser value as people. Then and only then could they write such utter nonsense, and claim that their ignorance and hatred and fear being projected, was the written word of "God."

It's hard for me to think that a person who was without the negative emotions could read that type of thing about anyone, and suddenly develop a hatred for them. Does that make sense? If the order I put it in is correct, than ignorance, fear, and hatred was projected as "the word of God," and used to justify the evil system of slavery.

I think we see this today, with the religious right capitalizing on the ungodly level of fear in our culture. I believe that people like Cheney and Falwell and their ilk are promoting fear in the everyday life of the general public, and then using this fear to nurture a climate of hatred and bitterness towards anyone they consider "different" -- which seems today to include, but certainly not be limited to, people who are Muslim, atheist, homosexual, pro-science, non-violent, and/or have a social conscience.

The institutionalized evils we see in even the past 200 years -- which include slavery, the Nazi death camps, and the genocidal policies aimed at the American Indian peoples -- could only happen because of the hatred, bitterness, and hostility that was already in the hearts and minds of the Christians who commited those acts. More: it requires that those Christians suspend any and all aspects of "free will," and to refuse to think for themselves!

The gospels are simply the "good news." "Do not be afraid," Jesus is quoted as saying three times in the good news of Matthew, which we recognize as a foundation of Buddhist teaching. Do not hate. Do not be bitter. Love your neighbor as yourself. Love your enemy. That is the gospel. If one follows those three things, it is impossible to go along with the institution of slavery. It is not possible to hate gay people, or Muslims, or people who have darker skin. That is the gospel. That is the kingdom of heaven, bliss, atman.

The perverted interpretation is anything and everything that has been used to contaminate the simple message of love and forgiveness of the gentle prophet Jesus. And it is an unfortunate truth the the history of the organized Christian church has too frequently been one of hatred, fear, bitterness, and violence.

Your comment that "every Christian seems to have their own methodology" seems optimistic ..... every thinking Christian certainly should. I'd go farther, and say every thinking person should.

[trotsky]

47. You've got an interesting combination there...

Mixing up the "No true Scotsman" fallacy with a chicken-and-egg dilemma and a little bit of begging the question on top.

All I can make of your words is that only someone when is being "good" are they following the true "gospel."

If you don't see any logical problems in that, well, I guess there's not much else to say.

[H2O Man]

48. I don't think that it

is likely that you would. It is clear you have no idea what I mean. One reason you don't know what I am talking about is because you and I live in very different worlds, and seek to live in very different worlds: yours works for you, and mine works for me. But because our values and goals are very different, our approaches to life have nothing in common. It's not that one is smarter or of greater value than the other.

Possibly if we were to actually be able to talk, face to face, some of the problems in communication would be cleared up. But that is not really a possibility.

It's not likely that on a public forum this size that everyone is going to agree with each other, or understand each other, or like each other. But even in those cases where we don't, I would suggest that people could be respectful. And if that means "not (having) much else to say," that's fine.

Perhaps as the James Dobsons grow stronger in influence in this country, we may find we have something in common after all. I think that the religious right is enough of a threat today that I'm only interested in taking part on the religion and theology forum in order to try to find common ground with others to defend against that threat. And even though you and I will never be involved in anything more than a thread here at most, there's no sense in wasting energy arguing about nonsense. Peace to you, trotsky, and the strength to keep up the good fight!

[onager]

18. "Perverted" interpretation? Not where I grew up.

I grew up hearing King specifically, and civil rights in general, denounced from the pulpits by white Xian preachers. LOTS of them.

The day King was shot, I heard more than one person say "thank God somebody finally killed that SOB." Others said it was "God's will" that he had been killed.

The OP essay was nicely written, but for me personally, it's just one more incidence of the Old Xian Shell Game--keep your eye on the good, liberal Xians and don't look over there at many OTHER self-proclaimed Xians who filled the ranks of the KKK and the White Citizen's Councils.

As for the "suffering" angle, the atheist Langston Hughes summed it up nicely in 4 simple lines, with his poem "Christ In Alabama:"

Christ is a nigger,
Beaten and black:
Oh, bare your back!

Mary is His Mother
Mammy of the South,
Silence your Mouth.

God's His Father--
White Master above
Grant us your love.

Most holy bastard
Of the bleeding mouth:
Nigger Christ
On the cross of the South.

[H2O Man]

20. Certainly not everyone

is going to hear a King or a Gandhi's message, and say, "Hey, that's for me." And that's fine. If for any reason a person like trotsky thinks, "Nope," that's fine. I wasn't posting to discuss this with people who feel otherwise. I respect their right to their beliefs, and am not asking them to think differently.

[Lerkfish]

24. perhaps its best

to avoid sidetracks in the thread.

If you will, could you instead comment on my post in the thread, further up? then perhaps we can re-rail this discussion.

:)

[H2O Man]

27. I did not take part in

that thread because I do not share the emotions expressed.

[H2O Man]

29. Day Two:

I had a number of e-mails, asking me to get back on track as far as discussing what this thread is intended to be about. It is not an effort to further discuss that which can divide the democratic left. That has skillfully been done elsewhere.

Many people on the left respect people such as King, Gandhi, and Robert Kennedy. Certainly, it is not a requirement for being a member of the democratic pary. But I am convinced that most of the Americans who admire these three men are likely democrats. And I am fully convinced that, at this point in our society, putting into practice the lessons that they taught offers us the single best avenue confronting the sickness that created the Bush administration, and to begin to heal the terrible damage their sickness has caused.

There is a 1998 book by Maxwell Taylor Kennedy, "Make Gentle the Life of This World: The Vision of Robert F. Kennedy." A Chicago Sun-Times review says the book "does much to explain why Robert F. Kennedy speaks across the generations." Max notes, "My father was an important bridge between two generations, across what was perhaps the greatest 'gap' in the history of the country."

The book is filled with quotes, many taken from RFK's speeches, some from his brother John, and a fascinating collection from RFK's daybook. They are the quotes that define his thinking from 1963 to 1968. For example, RFK wrote, "As Erik Erikson tells us, the archetype of human progress is in the story of Moses, who brought his people within sight of the promised land and then died, leaving to Joshua the leadership in achieving goals that both completely shared."

There is a section called "Suffering and Tragedy." RFK was moved by Albert Camus, and includes these two quotes: "But sometimes in the middle of the night their wound would open afresh. And suddenly awakened, they would finger its painful edges, they would recover their suffering anew and with it the stricken face of their love," and "I share with you the same revulsion from evil. But I do not share your hope, and I continue to struggle against this universe in which children suffer and die."

Yet the book is hopeful for the future. There is nothing that implies that people should willingly suffer without trying to change the circumstances that cause unearned suffering. Chapters are titled: "Seeking a Better World"; "A Hope for the Future"; and "A Greater World."

I think it is an important tribute to a man who showed that unearned suffering is indeed redemptive.

[H2O Man]

30. Gandhi

"To see the universal and all-pervading Spirit of Truth face to face, one must be able to love the meanest of creation as oneself. And a man who aspires after that cannot afford to keep out of any field of life. That is why my devotion to Truth has drawn me into the field of politics; and I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means."

[H2O Man]

31. "Beyond Belief" by Elaine Pagels

is one of the better books I've read in years. She does a wonderful job of explaining where some of the potential difficulties arise in discussing belief systems. The following is from pages 162-163:

Heracleon explains that for John, as for the prophet Iaiah, water means "spiritual nourishment"; thus, the story (of Jesus talking to the woman at the public well) shows that the woman is aware of spiritual thirst and, not knowing how to satisfy it, she has come to draw water from the "well of Jacob," which signifies the traditional ways of worshipping God. But since these leave her thirst unsatisfied, when Jesus offers to reveal the source of the wellspring within her, she immediately grasps what he means and responds, "Give me this water."

Heracleon points out that Jesus' answer ("Go, call your husband, and come here") makes no sense: not only does he not respond to her request but, as the story shows, he knows that she is not married. Bewildered by his words, the woman initially takes them literally and admits that she is unmarried but has lived with six men. Heracleon says that Jesus reveals to her that she has lived this way "through the ignorance of God and the needs of her own life." When he tells her to "call her husband," he is showing her that she already has a partner in the divine being -- that is, a relationship to God of which she is not yet aware. He directs her to call upon resources she already has been given, and to discover her spiritual counterpart, her "fulfillment" (pleroma in Greek). Once she recognizes this as an essential part of her being, she may celebrate communion with God as the divine "marriage."

Different as these two types of conversion experiences are, they are by no means mutually exclusive. The first sees salvation as deliverance from sin and death; the second shows how someone "ignorant of God and of (one's) own nature," and mired in destructive activity, eventually develops a growing awareness of -- and need for -- relationship with God. Heracleon explains that whoever experiences the first type of conversion may -- eventually will -- also experience the second, which is what Augustine, writing two centuries later, meant when he spoke of "faith seeking understanding."

Heracleon explains that most Christians tend to take literally the images they find in the Scriptures: they see God as the creator who made the present world, the lawgiver who gave the tablets to Moses on Sinai, the divine father who begot Jesus. But those who experience God's presence come to see these traditional images of God for what they are -- human creations. One need not reject such images, Heracleon says, since they provide an essential way of pointing toward divine reality that words cannot express; but one may come to see that all religious language -- and much other language -- consists of such images. Whoever realizes this comes to worship God, as Jesus says, "in spirit and in truth."

[universalcitizen]

32. ah, sweet breath of fresh air.

Mystics from all religions have partaken of this divine marriage throughout the history of the world. And without it we see the results of the economic marriage of the world around us. How easy it is for humanity to miss the "point".

Thank you H20man for this whole thread, it is a parable of the separating of the sheep and the goats.

[H2O Man]

33. Thank you.

"I am a citizen, not of Athens, nor of Greece, but of the whole world. The world is my parish." -- Socrates

[Me.]

40. Certainly The Road Less Traveled

in the mind. Is it the lethargy of our modern world that prevents us from accepting symbology as the path, as opposed to "fact", or is it fear?

[H2O Man]

41. Good question.

This quote from Spinoza may offer a bit of the answer: "If the way which, as I have shown, leads hither seems very difficult, it can nevertheless be found. It must indeed be difficult, since it is seldom discovered. For if salvation lay ready at hand and could be discovered without great labour, how could it be possible that it remains neglected by so many people? But all noble things are as difficult as they are rare."

[Me.]

44. "But all noble things are as difficult as they are rare."

Indeed.

[H2O Man]

45. I also like Lucius Annaeous Seneca's

saying, "There exists no more difficult art than living, for there are numerous teachers to be found for all other arts and sciences. Young people even believe that they have acquired these in such a way that they can teach them to others. Throughout the whole of life, one must continue to learn to live; and what will amaze you even more, throughout life, one must learn to die."

I tend to think this quote from the advocate of Stoicism goes well with Spinoza's saying.

[H2O Man]

34. Lazarus, Come Forth ....

"I have often reflected upon the new vistas that reading opened to me. I knew right there in prison that reading had changed forever the course of my life. As I see it today, the ability to read awoke in me some long dormant craving to be mentally alive. I certainly wasn't seeking any degree, the way a college confers a status symbol upon its students. My homemade education gave me, with every additional book that I read, a little bit more sensitivity to the deafness, dumbness, and blindness that was afflicting the black race in America. Not long ago, an English writer telephoned me from London, asking questions. One was, "What's your alma mater?" I told him, "Books." You will never catch me with a free fifteen minutes in which I'm not studying something I feel might be able to help the black man.

" ...Every time I catch a plane, I have with me a book I want to read -- and that's a lot of books these days. If I weren't out here every day battling the white man, I could spend the rest of my life reading, just satisfying my curiosity -- because you can hardly mention something I'm not curious about. I don't think anybody ever got more ut of going to prison than I did. In fact, prison enabled me to study far more intensively than I would have if my life had gone differently and I had attended some college. I imagine that one of the biggest troubles with colleges is there are too many distractions, too much panty-raiding, fraternities, and boola-boola and all of that. Where else but in a prison could I have attacked my ignorance by being able to study intensely sometimes as much as fifteen hours a day?

"Schopenhauer, Kant, Nietzsche, naturally, I read all of those. I don't respect them; I'm just trying to remember some of those whose theories I soaked up in those years. These three, it's said, laid the groundwork on which the Fascist and Nazi philosophy was built. I don't respect them because it seems to me that most of their time was spent arguing about things that aren't really important. They reminded me of so many of the Negro 'intellectuals,' so-called, with whom I have come in contact -- they are always arguing about something useless.

"Spinoza impressed me for a while when I found out he was black. A black Spanish Jew. The Jews excommunicated him because he advocated a pantheistic doctrine, something like the 'allness of God,' or 'God in everything.'"

-- The Autobiography of Malcolm X; pages 184-185

[H2O Man]

35. "America's Religious Right:

Saints or Subversives" by Steve Weismann is part of today's TruthOut. See: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/041505B.shlmt
*** (link does not work; page was moved; go to taday's TruthOut)


The article includes this chilling quote from Judge Roy Moore:

"Since September 11, we have been at war. I submit to you there is another war raging -- a war between good and evil, between right and wrong. For 40 years we have wandered like the children of Israel. In homes and schools across our land, it's time for Christians to take a stand. This is not a nation established on the principles of Buddha and hinduism. Our faith is not Islam. What we follow is not the Koran but the Bible. This is a Christian nation."

I think that people on the democratic left face an increasingly dangerous opponent. I think some of them are laying a groundwork not remarkably different in nature than that which Malcolm commented upon, above. And I think that there is too much arguing about unimportant things among the different schools of thought -- science and religion -- when the growing threat endangers both.

[Me.]

36. You Are Dangerously Correct

and unless we are aware and discuss we won't be able to protect ourselves from being crucified by the dogma of their "theology".

[H2O Man]

37. I suspect that

many are unaware of the intensity of the agenda of the Judge Roy Moore's in our society. They are far better organized than the left.

[H2O Man]

38. "Russell's religion"

Bertrand Russell once told of being arrested because he peacefully protested Britain's entry into World War 1. The jailer asked -- then a routine question for new arrivals -- Russell's religion. Russell replied, "Agnostic," which he was asked to spell. The jailer smiled benignly, shook his head and said, " There's many different religions, but I suppose we all worship the same God." Russell commented that the remark cheered him up for weeks. And there may not have been much else to cheer him up in that prison, although he did manage to write the entire "Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy" and started reading for his work "The Analysis of Mind" within its confines."
-- Broca's Brain; Carl Sagan; page 331

Bertrand Russell fits well into the Gandhi and King mold. He was part of the social conscience of his time. The fact that he was cheered up by the jailer's comment should be food for thought here. In order to protest what he was convinced was an unjust entry into war, he accepted unearned suffering -- because jail is not pleasant. Because of his attitude, he was able to turn it into something positive.

The day may come when ciizens of the USA need to give serious consideration to the tactics of Gandhi and King, to protest our nation's immoral policies. I wonder what would be the potential benefit of a small group -- perhaps a dozen -- of people representing a cross-section of the population, going to Washington to go on a hunger strike. There are times I've wondered if there were like-minded people on DU.

[universalcitizen]

42. "I share with you the same revulsion from evil. But...

I do not share your hope..."

There comes a time in every empire when speaking the truth has no effect. This was very evident in Christ's life. His crucifixion was the empire's response. Those who had an ear to hear were already gone when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. Josephus tells of a man who walked the wall for months prophesying what was coming, but because he stayed with the ship, he went down with it.

In the book of Revelation "another voice" says "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." And after the empire falls, that voice instructs, " Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her."

And yet, I still stand on the street corner, watching for those who are coming with me. I think I see one now, raising from the dead!

Sabbath Blessings, Friend.

http://www.strongcity.com

[H2O Man]

43. I hear you.

One of my best friends keeps suggesting that it is time for exodus. He left the US years ago. I think it is a good option for those starting out on life's journey.

" .... and they knew not, until the flood came and took them away."
--Matthew 24:39

[universalcitizen]

46. And for those of us ENDING "life's" journey...

death without seeing death is an option. Death to being saviors is a hard one for the human ego. Shortly before reading Walden Pond, I had read a book by Meher Baba. It was after he had cut himself off by vowing to never speak a word until he made the final statement that would forever change the world before his final departure. Alas, he left and forgot to tell us. I think he was too enraptured by what he saw on the path before him.

Here I am, leaving this earth, the final exodus. It's a beautiful vista before me.

[H2O Man]

49. Haudenosaunee ....

"I can tell you right now, there are no secrets. There's no mystery. There's only common sense." -- Chief Oren Lyons, Onondaga Nation

[H2O Man]

50. The greatest human strength ...

"I myself have no power. It's the people behind me who have the power. Real power comes from the Creator. It's in his hands. But if you're asking me about strength, not power, then I can say the greatest strength is gentleness." -- Tadodaho Leon Shenandoah

[H2O Man]

51. "A healthy human mind

respects the gifts of life -- all nature gives life. There is no word for 'nature' in my language. Nature, in English, seems to refer to that which is separate from human beings. It is a distinction we don't recognize. The closest words to the idea of 'nature' translate to refer to things that support life. It is foolish arrogance for humans to think themselves superior to all the life-support system. How can one be superior to that which one depends upon for life? Humans have invented marvelous technologies. The result has been that parts of the world live in unnecessary and debilitating surplus while people in other parts of the world are dying for lack of food, water, and shelter. Priorities need to be directed so that people who have plenty need not feel shame while others hunger and die. There should be no homeless or hungry people anywhere in the world. Those in power need to address this deplorable situation. We are all fellow travelers on this earth." -- Audrey Shenandoah, Onondaga Clan Mother, addressing a keynote address at the 1990 Global Forum on Environment and Development for Survival; held in Moscow. She spoke between addresses by Soviet President Gorbachev and UN Secretary general Perez de Cuellar.

[universalcitizen]

52. Life supports the universal mind.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree: and it shall be to the LORD for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off. Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. Isaiah

That the "natural man" is quite insane is evident from the affairs, current and past, of this world. The natural mind is at enmity with nature because it considers itself separate both from the creation and its Creator. His thoughts are that He and His creation are ONE.

The only solution for this natural mind is natural death. Then the mind of God can take control. And then the soul can say, as Paul did, "We have the mind of the God,"
and it sees what Audrey Shenandoah saw.

[G_j]

53. Yes it did!

and my love for him is all that much greater for it