Conference hydra::dejavu

    
    I may type in more on the terms 'emptiness' and 'vulnerability'
    in the topic under 'Religions and World Peace', but for now I thought
    this story might be of some use here, since the end goal is tolerance.
    
    From: The Different Drum, by M.Scott Peck, pp.212-213
                                                                          
    "Since peacemaking is our end, let me give an example of cross-cultural
    misunderstanding that was caused by mental fullness, clutter and
    noise, but was finally clarified out of silence and emptiness. 
    The situation occurred at an international symposium of theologians
    from all corners of the globe.  When we assembled after one of the
    plenary sessions for discussion in our assigned small group, a man
    from Ghana who was a practitioner and teacher of what is known as
    African traditional religion began by saying that he didn't understand
    all the stuff that had been said in the preceeding lecture about
    a "suffering God."  "It's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard,"
    he exclaimed.  "God doesn't suffer."
    
    "Of course He suffers," almost everyone in the group affirmed, quoting
    Dietrich Bonhoeffer or this authority or that.  But with each rebuttal
    the Aftican just dug in his heals deeper, maintaining ever more
    vehemently, "I've never heard anything so silly in my life."  The
    more he stuck to his guns, however, the more adamant the group became
    in its attempt to change his mind.  The clamor escalated until our
    little group of adults became as noisy as a third-grade classroom
    after the teacher had been absent for an hour.
    
    "Stop," I cried suddenly.  "The average IQ in this room is probably
    around a hundred and sixty.  Surely we can communicate better than
    this.  Let's just stop and be silent for three minutes and see what
    happens.
    
    The group obeyed.  After the silence one of the Americans began
    talking about how much he loved his children.  In fact, he said,
    he missed them right then, and that hurt him.  He felt hurt when
    they were sick or injured.  Their trials and tribulations pained
    him.  He worried over their future, and that too was a kind of
    suffering.  His children were the most important aspect of his life,
    he told us, and he would hardly have it different, but in certain
    ways his love for them made his existence much more painful than
    it might be otherwise.
    
    "Ah, now I understand," the African exulted with obvious pleasure.
     "Of course there is pain with love, and of course God loves, so
    He hurts over us the way we hurt over our own children.  The problem,
    you see, is that in our language, the word 'suffer' refers solely
    to bodily suffering, to physical pain.  And we do not believe that
    God has a body.  He is pure in spirit.  So to talk of Him experiencing
    bodily pain seemed absurd to me.  But does God hurt?  Oh, yes, of
    course God hurts."
    
    One wonders how many thousands - how many millions - of times each
    day such misunderstandings arise among people of different cultures,
    even among people of the same culture, because we fail to bracket,
    to "silence the familiar," to empty ourselves of our semantics and
    traditional images.  I am reminded of the time when Soviet Premier
    Nikita Khrushchev came to the United States and, at the start of
    one of his speeches, clasped his hands above his head and bounced
    up and down.  Americans were furious.  Had he not already said that
    Russia would bury us, and here he was bouncing up and down like
    a cocky prizefighter who had just triumphed in a boxing match! 
    Yet some years later a man familiar with the culture told me that
    this was a traditional Russian gesture meaning "hands clasped in
    friendship across the sea."
    
    Unless we empty ourselves of such preconceived cultural or intellectual
    images and expectations, we not only cannot understand the Other,
    we cannot even listen.  Indeed, we cannot even feel empathy."
    
    ...Emptiness requires work.  It is an exercise of dicipline and
    is always the most difficult part of the process that a group must
    undergo if it is to become a community.  Like any dicipline, it
    can become easier if we make it a habit...  But even if habitual,
    it is still painful.  For emptiness always requires a negation of
    the self and the need to know, a sacrifice.
    
    ...there is no formula in answer to that inevitable question, I
    can only say further, "The unconscious is always one step ahead
    of the conscious mind, and it is therefore impossible ever to 'know'
    that you are doing the right thing (since knowing is a function
    of consciousness).  However, if your will is steadfastly good, and
    if you are willing to suffer fully when the good is ambiguous, your
    unconscious will be always one step ahead of your conscious mind
    in the right direction."  In other words, you will do the right
    thing even though you will not have the consolation of knowing at
    the time that it is the right thing.
    
    Those who seek certainty, or who claim certainty in their knowledge,
    cannot tolerate ambiguity.  The word "ambiguous" means "undertain"
    or "doubtful" or "capable of being understood in more than one way."
     And because that means not knowing - perhaps not ever being able
    to know - we have great trouble with ambiguity in our culture. 
    It is not until we move into Stage IV of our spiritual growth that
    we even begin to feel comfortable with ambiguity.  We start to realize
    that not everything is "black or white", that there are multiple
    dimensions to things, often with contradictory meanings.  So it
    is that mystics of all cultures and religions speak in terms of
    paradox - not in terms of "either/or" but in therms of "both/and."
    The capacity to accept ambiguity and to think paradoxically is both
    one of the qualities of emptiness and one of the requirements for
    peacemaking."
    
    End of quote.
    
    Those of you with scientific backgrounds should know the famous
    paradox - what is light?  Well, it is both a wave and a particle,
    depending upon how you look at it.  I used to have a lot of problems
    with that, and believed that someday someone would eventually
    figure out which it REALLY was.  (Yes, I too was a skeptic...for
    a very long time - 15 years or more.)
    
    I don't think about that anymore.  I've accepted that light it is 
    both a particle and a wave.  Will add in the Christian example (though
    this can be applied to other beliefs as well).  Was Jesus human
    or divine?  The answer (as I believe it to be) is both.  He was
    100% human and 100% divine, depending upon the criteria used to
    describe his actions.  It was interesting that Peck supports this
    belief in his work "What Return Can I Make?". 
         
    Sort of brings new meaning to the famous statement which goes something
    like this, "So I contradict myself?  Very well then, I contradict myself!".
                                      
    Cindy
             

    Re .1:
    
    The actual quote, which is Robert Frost's, is particularly relevant
    to this Conference:
    
    "I contradict myself?  So I contradict myself.  I am vast.  I contain
    multitudes."
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Re .-1
    
>    The actual quote, which is Robert Frost's, is particularly relevant
>    to this Conference:
>    
>    "I contradict myself?  So I contradict myself.  I am vast.  I contain
>    multitudes."
>   
>    Steve Kallis, Jr.


Isn't that quote from Walt Withman? Song of Myself or some such?

-vicki

    
    That's funny, I always thought it was Mark Twain!

Mystery solved, I looked it up last night. It was Walt Witman, from
Song of Myself, in Leaves of grass.

-vicki

    So Steve contradicts himself? He is vast. He contains multitudes.
    
    -not Walt Whitman

    
    I believe the problem might lie in the fact that many famous people
    have quoted this quote in public (for example, I recall reading
    that a US President said this somewhere), and then the quote was 
    associated with the person quoting the quote, instead of the actual
    originator of the quote.
    
    Hope you all can follow the logic in the above sentence.......
    

    Re .6:
    
    No, Steve didn't contradict himself; he goofed on the author.  Of
    course,  no matter what others might say, Steve never considered
    himself omniscient. :-)
    
    > ... He is vast. ...
    
    Geez!  Maybe I'd _really_ better get started on that diet. ;-)
                                
    Steve Kallis, Jr.           
    who-doesn't-mind-being-corrected-when-he-goofs.

    The actual quote according to both Bartelett's Familiar Quotations
    and the Oxford University Press Dictionary of Quotations is:
    
    	Do I contradict myself?  Very well then, I contradict myself,
    	(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
    
    This is (according to Bartlett) from the "Deathbed" (last) edition
    of Leaves of Grass which Whitman asked to be considered definitive.
    Steve's version may have come from an earlier edition.
    
    					Topher
    

    Oh well, I always thought being vast was better than being half-vast.
    

    Now that we've dispopsed of that, back to the subject.
    
    Some motes in this Conference teeter delicately between discussing
    the .. er .. secular paranormal and the religious.  This puts us
    in an interesting position, because some of this stuff's sort of
    built into our definitions.
    
    Example: "Witch."
    
    To many in this Conference, "Witch" = "Wiccan."  Period.  Thus,
    when someone talks about any other kind of witch (to the general
    p ublic) "witch" = "person, almost invariably female, who is a
    practitioner of evil magic, those who accept the "witch" = "Wiccan"
    definition are bothered and disturbed, sometimes reacting angrily.
    
    Example: "spiritualist."
    
    There was a somewhat sharp exchange because one Conference member
    seemed to have the following definition: "spiritualist" = "anyone
    who acts as a medium for souls of the departed (or pretends to)."
    Another used the [actually, more precise] definition: "a member
    of a religious movement that tries to contact spirits of the dead."
    
    In both cases, because of the possible religious connection, some
    people get more bruised than others in some exchanges.  This is
    why I've suggested the religious aspects, which are parts of intensely
    personal, private belief, be muted.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    My goodness - we are back on the topic!  
    
    Being rather new at all of this - I'd like to say that the more I 
    read and learn, the more that there seems to be an underlying 
    connection to *everything* - much like Peck describes (see Religions
    and World Peace topic).  At a certain level of understanding, there
    really is no controversy and everything is in balence and harmony.
    
    At this point, it seems like I'm searching for questions as opposed
    to answers - believing that if I find out what it is that I don't
    know, the answer will be there waiting, eventually, in one form or 
    another.  Anybody else experience this?  
    
    I am convinced that EVERYTHING can coexist in the mind, and in the
    world - much like the light paradox in science today.  The light is 
    still there, no matter how anyone chooses to define it.  Who knows 
    - someone might even discover yet another characteristic to light 
    before all is said and done.  The only problem is when one person 
    believes that they have the Ultimate truth (their way is the RIGHT
    AND ONLY way) when it really is only part of the Ultimate truth
    and just the languages or the means of expressions are different.
    
    Now to actually prove it.....
    
    Cindy
                 

    
    Meant to say in the last note:
    
    	"can coexist PEACEFULLY in the mind and in the world...."
    
    Cindy

RE: .25 (Lorenzo)

The people who have not heard "The Word" are blessed because they have one
less guilt-trip to suffer.  Salvation is not necessary for those who do
not need saving.  Missionaries bring the disease and then expect the world to
rejoice that they also bring the cure.

As the book of Esdras says, "What sorrow for mankind; what happiness for
the wild beasts!  What sorrow for every mother's son; what gladness for
the cattle and flocks!  How much better their lot than ours!  They have
no judgment to expect, no knowledge of torment or salvation after death."
[2 Esdras 7:65-67 NEB]


John M.

    RE:25
    
     According to the scriptures, EVERYBODY is going to hear the gospel,
    whether they want to hear it or not; So they won't have the chance
    to stand in judgement and say: "I didn't know, no body told me"!
    
    
    LORENZO
    

Re .25

If this is the case, would it be then safe to assume that the "end of the
world" would then be predictable? In order to fulfill the scripture , as
stated, wouldn't there be a zero birth rate for a period of years in
order for all living people to both hear and *comprehend* scripture??
Interesting argument for continued procreation to stop the "inevitable"
from ever happening.

Ted

    RE: .16 (Lorenzo)
                                                  
    > According to the scriptures, EVERYBODY is going to hear the gospel < 
                                                                          
    
    Please state the verse in the Bible that makes this claim.
    
    If God had wanted all people to hear "the word," he would have given
    it to all people, instead of relying on the inaccuracies and caprices
    of translators, and the corruption of "the word" itself (whatever that
    is; one man's scripture is another man's junk).  
    
    How is it God creates the world in six days but relies on people
    to disseminate "his word" over thousands of years?  Really, if he
    wanted to wipe out original sin at its source, he should have sent
    Jesus to Adam and Eve.
    
    John M.                                                           
    

    re:< Note 461.16 by USRCV1::JEFFERSONL "Jesus cares for you!" >
                             -< GET THE PICTURE? >-

�    According to the scriptures, EVERYBODY is going to hear the gospel,
�    whether they want to hear it or not; So they won't have the chance
�    to stand in judgement and say: "I didn't know, no body told me"!
 
    
    Gee that's great news!!  Now all the bible-thumpers can relax and
    come down from their pulpits, and give the rest of us a break.
    
    	bruce

Re: .16
    
>>     According to the scriptures, EVERYBODY is going to hear the gospel,
>>    whether they want to hear it or not; So they won't have the chance
>>    to stand in judgement and say: "I didn't know, no body told me"!
    
    

You can hear the same words, but get different meanings from them.  Who's 
interpertation are you talking about?  Catholic?  Fundementalist?  
Congregationist? Mormon?  They'll all say it's THEIR version anyway.

Dave
 

re: .16 (Lorenzo)

    >  So they won't have the chance to stand in judgement and say: 
    >  "I didn't know, no body told me"!

I was in the military and that sounds like the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ)...

Terry

    RE:18
    
    READ MATTHEW 24:14
         MARK 13:9-10
         
    LORENZO
    

RE: .22 (Lorenzo)

You will note that Matthew 24:14 and Mark 13:9-10 state that the gospel
must be preached to all *nations* before the end of the world.  This is
very different from saying that every *person* must hear the word.  And
it is very unlikely that every person is going to hear the Gospel: already,
billions have died who never heard of Jesus (and who likely did very well
without him).

Jesus, as did most 1st century Christians, thought that he would return
soon after his death ("the present generation will live to see it all").
I can cite verse after verse in support of this.  He did NOT return, so
either he was wrong, or the Scriptures were wrong, or he never said it in
the first place (probably all three).

I often think that if the early Christians could have looked into the future
and seen that, 2000 years later, their lord had not returned, they would
have gone back to their old ways.

John M.