Level 7 Member
Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 11:33 AM
As I listened to the media detail every aspect of his upcoming funeral, I heard a few things that we might learn from his death. A persons life, as well as their death, if we are looking for it, can always be a tool for our own enlightenment.
While the media was trying to detail Micheals religious persuasion, I heard them say he was raised as a Jahovahs Witness, who then became a Muslim and that they really didnt know what religion he adhered to. It was then that I saw the seed for this discusion.
The definition of Religion as I understood it is: "ones personal relationship with God" This relationship can be one of just a label, or it can if used, define a life. I believe in Mr Jacksons case, it was the former.
No religious title is necessary, if one believes the example of their life reflects what they believe. And I think that this time in humanities history, the latter is the way to go. To define yourself as a Christian, and then not live it, is for what? To claim you are something and then your example proves just the opposite, would be best left at home in a drawer.
I of course am not for wiping out religion, what I am for is wiping out it's umbrella.
To be something you first have to know what that entails. Say I want to be a teacher, I need to know what it takes to be that. And here is the most important word...BE that..rather than do that.
I believe, if you are living the best example of the Christ, there would be no reason to claim it's title. Your example should speak for itself.
Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:17 PM
It has been said that we Americans are overachievers, over-eaters, material consummers, and now the exaggeration of the overly entertained.
Why may I ask, does a talent like Michael Jackson claim 12 days of hype, becuase he died? I can understand his talent and unqiue work, but I cant understand the honoring of this man? Honor his music, buy his albums, but to honor his life, is to laudit a life style of excess, irresponsiblity, and abuse. This is certainly not the life one should admire. Admire his work, not his insecurities that lead him to his death.
Sorry to say, America perfers to make "golden idols" out of those who entertain.Why? What did MJ do for you? What did Madonna, Britney Spears, and on and on. Hollywood is full of insecure talent. Love their talent, but get real about who they really are.
As a writer, I seek to never be the focus of my work. The work is the thing! So why do so many people get caught up in the personality, rather than in the art itself?
What America should be asking is, why do we have such an excessive need to be entertain? This week a cap and trade bill, that can deeply impact our lives financially . Is the media focusing on this, hell no, instead they say that they are giving us what we want, entertainment. Hype, instead of substance. Fluff instead of true meaning and value.
So what does that say of Americans? What it says to me, is that we seek the easy way out. We are like children, like Micheal Jackson, who truly didnt want to grow up. We raise this person to such laudable heights as an entertainment god, for our children to worship. This self indulgent, excessive spender, who used his own children as play things , all becuase he could sing and dance.
Micheal Jackson, Britney Spears, and all the other Hollywood Stars deserve some acknowlegement for their work. But America, can you name a scientist who is today doing good work? A vertern from Iraq or Afganistan, who has one the purple heart? Can you say, that these people are real heroes that deserve our praise.
Farrar Fawcett, died with dignity. She documented her struggle with cancer to help others know of its effect. She even at deaths door, called her ex Lee Majors, who she had not spoken to for some time, for a last goodbye. Her passing was overshadowed by the choice of OUR media to choose exaggeration over substance.
What seems to bother me most is, that there are good people dying everyday, will no fanfare or hype. What bothers me most is, that the Character of the Christ, in todays world, doesnt fit our needs. Instead we choose, to laudit those who exemplify just the opposite. We wish to erase God from public buildings, correct our use of Merry Christmas, to Seasons Greetings. And replace what was great about the American Character of our Founding Fathers, with the empty adulation of a Pop Icon.
I think its time America lets go of Nevernever Land. Its great when we are children, its harmful to live irresponsively as an adult. Hollywood is a Never Never Land . Where adults need not live the lives of the regular folks, but who can for a price, drug themselves, indulge in bizzare behavior, all under the guise of being talented. Star quality should be something we all can look up to. Not becuase we need to be entertained, but instead, becuase we see the substative value this person gives to another. Its time to change our heroes. Put more emphasis where it truly belongs. We can admire the talent of others, but remember its the work that is the purpose, not the personality.
Monday, July 6, 2009, 9:43 AM
How does gender really play a part in Spirituality? Some religions exclude women when it comes to priesthood. Dont accept gay marriage. And place more importance on a masculine role, in the Church.
Here is my take on these issues. Gender itself has little meaning in the spiritual . Things of the Spirit arent focused on anything of a physical nature. Its more like the body is our car. It gets us where we are going, but we can get out of it, once we reached our destination.
The body was created for earthly experiences. To procreate, and to learn through its senses. However, to place more importance on it, than it truly is meant to have, becomes a spiritual distraction.
Gender issues give the person a chance to understand self. However, the body will never lead us to our spiritual goal. It is only the invisible that can.
God is, in concept invisible. So to reach the understanding of a realm of invisiblity, one must look beyond the body. Hence, any gender issue, is body oriented, and has little to do with God, but all to do with man.
If one looks at ones hand, the statement.."this is my hand" would be accurate. The true question is: Not who's hand it is, but rather who is the director of it? The hand is physical, but its director is spiritual. Its director is genderless. Its our possessive nature, that creates the mistake. Is it truly neccessary to define its gender, in the statement? Not really. Who really would be looking to mate with your hand?
Gender issues belong to mating. Go forth and mulitply, could mean to procreate, or it many also mean to go spread the word. Both are direction of the spirit, however, one remains spiritual in its nature, while the other is born of the physical.
When looking to the invisible, the only instrument that is a tool for self development , is character. One cant see "good" , in the sense of holding "good" in your hand. However, you can "feel" good. You can touch the invisible through a feeling, or even a spiritual thought. Both these actions are felt in the body, but the body was never their creator, it is the reciever.
Saturday, July 4, 2009, 5:25 PM
Not being a person who studied Theology, but rather devoted my life to understanding what it truly means to love oneself, I dont truly believe, I ever was moral?
To me, morals are things that are imposed from the outside. A set of standards that a society accepts as the proper way to live. I guess I was never proper, but I always strived to be ethical. These laws were not imposed from and outside source, but rather from the source within.
Morals for me, have little meaning, becuase they can, and have changed with time. Whereas, principles and values are timeless, and live in the best part of our character, waiting to be expressed through our Soul.
Morals seem to restrict and force a person into compling against their will. This would be completely against the idea of "choice" , of which God has granted us. An ethical being, does what is right...just becuase, it is who he is.
Religions can be concerned too much with do's and donts, and can make people live falsely within themselves. Creating at times guilt, rather than salvation.
Producing people who are more concerned with what others think, than about who they truly are.
I believe I was never moral, but I know, I was always ethical. I never did anything that I didnt want to do, yet I never harmed another by what I did. I loved myself, but never more than I loved another. And the most important lesson, that came from being ethical, was the ability to worship the Truth. Truth more than love, to me, is the calling of our Highest Good. No lie should pass my lips, nor blemish my good word.
For me, it is far better to become an truly ethical being, than to conform to a more' given to us, by mere men.
Monday, June 29, 2009, 9:36 AM
After reading an editorial in my local paper regarding Mark Sandfords fall from grace, I asked myself this question.
The editorial made examples of the so called self-righteousness of the GOP. It used the idea of "Family Values" as its resource of condemnation towards the entire party. Sighting that so many Christian Conserveratives, seem to not practice what they preach. And I'm sure this is not the only area where this is a truth.
What I found so disturbing in this article was, that it used Sandfords human frailty, as a reason for the GOP "to stop telling people how to live". In essence it asked them to give up their standards and values becuase they had no right to believe that way . It was as if because of these men not living up to what they say they believed, the belief itself, should be disregarded.
What is it in our culture, that sees the need to distroy another, to make a point ? Why is it that we need to destroy, rather than understand? Is it possible for us to learn, without accusatory personal attacks?
Lets face it, we tend to point fingers at others, so that people will look the other way. But why? Why do we as human beings, need to blame others ? Why are we afraid of looking at what we do, rather than spending so much time looking for the behavior of others? We seem to express moral indignation only when it suits our need to look better, or to make a point or to win an election or an editorial?
Why arent we inherrently more focused on our untruths, than looking to "gottcha" another?
Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 7:35 AM
Before I offend any one, I have to say that a balance person tends to forget their gender. When the need to attacked the opposit sex is no longer a prority, gender issues tend to no longer apply. However, this statement is based upon a balanced union within oneself. It seems todays world is in the process of expansion of its femaleness.
In Iran or any Arab State, the feminine is surpressed. They treat that part of themselves as lesser on one hand, while giving much power to her sexuality. Many within the Middle East from our point of view, look adolescent when it comes to the way they view women.
I believe the idea of the" strong woman" is being hurt in todays world,. Just look at some strongly visible women who recently have had body parts broken.
Sonya Sotomayor, Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thather. A foot, an elbow, a hip. Had these women not been on the world stage, I would never have seen this as the sign of our time.
The female nature is being battered, on more than one level. And as we all know, sometime things have to break before they can be rebuilt stronger. We also know, that when a bone is broken, it heals strong because of its break. Why these accidents caught my eye is because for a very long time I believed, that unless, and untill, the Arab States begin to accept their own feminine nature, Peace in the Middle East will never, ever, occur.
Their adolescent viewpoint of women, as the evil temptress has existed since the beginning of time. In Iran, a women walking the streets without covering her head, can be stoned. When you make the female side of your nature, subservant , silent, and surpressed, your nature is not in harmony. Oh yes, they may hold the worlds pocketbook by its strings, much like men did here before we got our equal rights. I believe are witnessing another revolution. Not the feminine movement of our civil rights, but a more gentle way to express our strengh of character.
Even President Obama, is being accused of being too soft in his outreach to the Arab world. He too is expressing this change.
Arab women now have an opportunity, at this time to draw upon the strength of our feminine nature, not against men, as we did with the feminist movement, but rather by using the inner strength of our masculine nature.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 8:51 AM
Yesterday I asked the question about the acceptance of a friend who accepts what she calls a friend, who is a constant liar. I question this relationship and much like in Iran today, would you accept or allow for a lie when you know full well it is untrue?
Today I realized , that although I understand all the reasons for a person inablility for speaking the truth, I still cant accept the lie. I can understand but I can never"befriend" it.
For me the word "friend" isnt a word I take lightly. Few of us ever encounter a relationship where ones heart is expressed completely the same in another. And it is certain that one who feels the need to lie, to another for whatever reason, could never attain my ideal of a friend.
One certainly can pontificate about what Christ would do , or accept, but I believe, just as He stood against His own temptations, He too, would never befriend the liar, again. Thats not to say that another Judas wouldnt be seeking Him, however, I firmly believe that Christ would not a accept that as part of His Character. And it is the Character of the Christ that I seek to display and to fully express.
Acceptance of another is a given, but accepting a behavior that you would never want for yourself, is something completely differnt. Does the parent befriend the lie his child wishes to make look lik the truth? No I think not. Even though the Parent knows, and loves his child, he longs for the truth that lives within his child, to be told. He longs for his child to see the Truth and be courages enough to express it.
He longs for his child to choose Truth over the lie , every time.
To be true to yourself, allows one to be true to others, it is this relationship that I seek with all who love or wish to love as a "friend".
Monday, June 22, 2009, 10:19 AM
I was speaking to a friend who spoke of a friend who she accepts, knowing full well that the person is a consistent liar. I accepted my friends word, however I immediately knew I would never be accepting of something or someone in my life.
Call my feeling judgemental, however what does it say that someone would accept a person in their life who lies? For me, befriending a liar is commiting to a false friendship. And any friend I feel is of God would be one who at least would be seeking Truth.
I could not fully trust in such a person, hence I could never fully commit to the relationship. Relationships for me are extremely important, and friendships are even more important to me, than even family. And knowing full well that a person lies to a friend, I cant in good conscience call them a friend.
After all what would be the point? To show others how accepting I am? Would I accept a murderer in my life as a friend? I may ask God for His forgiveness regarding the murderer, however I could never truly accept his act. Hence, I feel the same regarding the opposite of Christs Character, the habitual liar.
To understand more, the person who feels the need to lie, has yet accepted themselves. They have yet to stand on a principle, or have yet to understand the meaning of the Christ. It's that lack of understanding and maybe even indifference to ones Soul, that would not allow me to accept them as a friend.
I can of course accept them as a person, but never can I accept them into my heart, knowing that the words they may express, may not match those that are in their heart.
What do you think?