Posts

Posts
All articles from all albums, full content, latest on top,
not including Doodles
Page 114 of 129, posts 566 - 570 of 645
Urantiana

The revelation gives us the power and purpose to be the spiritual leaders of the world.

To all my sibling students of the revelation, greetings:

I set about this message with a light heart. We have had revealed to us that we are approaching an eventual age of Light and Life on this world, and also we have had revealed to us that we have the potential to realize this Light and Life in our own lives. Through the inspiration of the revealed truths of this remarkable text we are given the challenge, purpose, and power to be spiritual leaders of the world. Our course is clear, to preach and to live the gospel of love and service to God and to our fellows who still live more in shadow than we. I would wager that most of you reading this have already made your choice for God. Now is the time to renew your allegiance to our inspired and inspiring purposes.

Some were raised with Jesus, in a church or a family which, despite mortal shortcomings, did not thwart the voice of the Spirit of Truth as it led to Jesus, and Jesus in turn revealed our Father, so progress into understanding of the revelation's truths was relatively smooth. For others, the change of comprehension was a more dramatic shift. But all of us who have been given the understandings of this revelation have the same challenge, to live our lives with such drawing power that these understandings which we can communicate are attractive to others. The revelation very much depends on our exhibiting the fruits of the spirit. Our grasp of truth may be good but our transmission of truth depends on grace.

For nearly twenty-five years now, I have met and studied with students of the revelation. I have witnessed a progression of generations, a transformation of purpose and personalities. The fellow students whom I earliest met were mostly relatively staid and mundane, the direct descendents of the original readership, reserved but confident in faith, quietly heroic in their willingness to soldier the forward evolutionary dispersal of the revelation. Looking back, I seem to have been part of a transitional generation who came to the revelation independently through a combination of forces, some of which were the general spiritual reawakening of the times and some of which I suspect were the specific guidings of our personal spiritual teachers. Now it seems we have another generation, even less attached to the previous eras, with new interpretations, and a new spirit of inspiration and enthusiasm for the purposes of this revelation, for its power to transform the world of the cross into the jewel in Michael's crown. Whatever turbulence the main clot of adherents of the teachings may suffer, there is a thriving worldwide awakening to the revelation which should encourage every one of us.

As each of our generations becomes "old fogeys" of the company of followers of the newly revived gospel of love and ministry, we should celebrate the success of the combined efforts of mortals and celestials in bringing new blood to the cause. As we struggle to tame excessive enthusiasm, let us not dampen the evangelistic fires. As we present our hard-won understandings of the teachings to the new generations, let us listen carefully for the new insights and fresh perspectives the fresh readers bring not just to interpretation of the work but to the tactics of evangelism. Let our conservative spirits of the churches and our liberal spirits of progress be united in joyous purpose of spreading the gospel to the whole world.

Social and political problems may entangle our institutionalized organizations, but never let those complications cause us to doubt for a moment the world-changing power of our mission. Differences in strategies and tactics may hobble groups in working toward presentation of the Urantia Papers to the world, but every individual who believes this gospel can be an immediate saving force for the people we deal with each day. We live on a world saddled with difficulties rooted in two hundred thousand years of rebellion, default, betrayal, evil, sin, and iniquity, a full dispensation and more behind what we might have been, yet we have working with us and within us the Spirit of a Master Michael, who is even our own Urantian sibling, Prince of our world, and we have the revelation of truth even to the Central and Superuniverses which is usually given only to Post-Teacher Son worlds. The authorities who permitted this revelation demonstrated that same confidence in us which Jesus showed in choosing his apostles and missionaries. We are worthy of their confidence, and we will be positive and constant in our faith and in our preaching. We can accomplish what they expect of us because we are the children of the Almighty Source of all existence, and the siblings and children of the completed Master of a universe. We will make this world fit for Michael's return.

We stand on the brink of a new era of enlightenment and life. We can rise above the dark times and materialistic distractions of the age in which we are born and live today as if already our Father, Brother, Teacher, and Master has returned, in us, to transform the entire human race. No betrayal by some misguided Lanonandeks stops us -- the devils have been ordered behind us and cannot touch us. No default of our Material Son and Daughter hampers us -- their efforts were partial but not completely in vain and we are able to make up for that which they failed to achieve. No lack of connection to the circuits of the universe bothers us -- we are directly connected to the Heart and Soul of all the universe. We are the seed of the age of Light and Life, the harbingers of the Teacher Sons, the students of the Melchizedeks, the children of Christ Michael, and the offspring of God the Universal Father. We are the very vanguard of the Fifth Epochal Revelation to planet Urantia, and as we present a united front to the world, so we are the fulfillment of the promise of this newest presentation of truth.

Our world is fantastic, unique, exciting, wonderful. Our world is unsettled, even primitive in some areas. Yet here we are, with the truth of Paradise. The best of all worlds. Ripe for change. A harvest of souls for the Father. A sudden majestic symphony penetrating a long and frightening silence, a brilliant double rainbow sparkling as a long storm passes in the evening, a cry of new life after an arduous labor, we ourselves are the very Revelation, as it lives in us.

As we grow and preach and teach, we will turn a corner and delight to find fellow teachers and preachers, some inspired by our revelation, some simply surfing forward with us on this wave of the age of spiritual awakening, and we will embrace one another and be amazed together at how the Holy Spirit works to heal our damaged world. As experience in preaching the gospel gives us growing strength of confidence and renewed faith, the small things that trouble us now will grow even smaller, the insignificant difficulties we fret about now will disappear as the illusions they are, and the serious challenges we face will inspire us to new solutions and new answers the world has never seen. No matter if it is a day or a thousand millennia until Machiventa Melchizedek takes the throne of Planetary Sovereign, until the children of Adam and Eve may come back to us, until Michael graces us once more with his presence, because we are already in the presence of God, and we have joy and wonder in our hearts, light and life in our souls, and love and service to bestow on our fellows of this world.

Sing harmonies of joy, shout gladly, and praise God with all our might, for we have seen the beginnings of an age that all the ages have longed for, a day when truth will rule, fellowship will embrace all people, and goodness is the motivation of every heart. We know the truth and we are free. We live the age of light and life here and now. We transcend our environment and escape the limitations of the world of our origin with the insight of divine love. Truth, beauty, and goodness are our heart and glory, our purpose and our motivation to righteousness. The Spirit of Truth fills the minds of all our fellows in the world, this Spirit shines its spotlight on the everlastingly true, beautiful, and good attractiveness of the Master Jesus, and Jesus is our way, truth, and light to our Father Source and Center. Always remember, "the revelation of God to the world, in and through Jesus, shall not fail."^




Radical Incline

Countering common erroneous arguments for prohibitionism; the Golden Rule as the foundation for good law.

Various arguments are commonly presented for prohibition. I will briefly address the error of each of these common arguments, and then address the single principle which should govern thinking in the matter of addressing private, personal recreational substance use in a free society.

Erroneous arguments and concepts concerning substance use

Drug users are individuals, not a class

The terms drug "abuse" and drug "use" are, today, often used interchangeably. Reference is made to "drug abusers" as if all recreational substance users are chronic abusers. Thinking of all users of all substances as a monolithic group denies the range of individual behaviors and choices. Categorizing so many with the label "drug abusers" stigmatizes all users as if they were a single type. The peaceful weekend pot-smoker is classed (and jailed) with the violent crack addict. Carrie Nation and her ilk sought to (and did, for a while) outlaw alcohol, unconcerned that this lumped together the occasional peaceful wine-sipper with the abusive habitual alcoholic.

Groups do not choose to use drugs. Individuals do.

The argument from socialized medicine

The cost of drug abuse to the system of socialized medicine is often cited as a justification for drug prohibitions.

These are not problems if individuals are made to bear the personal responsibility for any consequences of their choices. The personal cost of acts of intoxicated transgression would be borne by the individual in a non-socialist society. True, there is a social cost of policing required for the transgressions of many intoxicated individuals. However, in a society where prohibitions were not exacerbating black markets and exaggerating the frequency, attractions, and treatment of drug abuse, such policing would be on an entirely different scale than our current madness. The period between the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments to the American Constitution is a lesson which has yet to be learned.

The argument from insurance costs

As with socialized medical costs, another justification often used for drug prohibitions is the effect upon insurance rates.

Repercussions to insurance costs of those who use drugs are a fault of a poorly-structured insurance industry. Insurance companies have the responsibility to their customers to make sure their insurance payments are not thus abused. The fire insurer should make sure that buildings are adequately fireproofed. Consider the parallels of insurance companies which offer discounts to non-smokers, or non-drinkers.

The argument from potentially increased abuse

Some hold that drug use, and drug abuse, are likely to increase if prohibitions are repealed. Although data is limited, indications from alcohol prohibition indicate that the attraction of "forbidden fruit" brought some to alcohol who otherwise may not have been that attracted. It's difficult to gauge, because so many changes in society (changes in church and family) accompanied the alcohol prohibition era and the subsequent other-drug prohibition era. But it seems that alcohol use did increase due to prohibition and then increased again with repeal.

That alcoholism may increase because alcohol is legal is not an argument for reinstituting Prohibition thereof; it is an argument for increased education and social pressure by non-governmental groups (family, doctors, church, businesses). A stable society tends to reduce the anxieties which lead to such drug abuse, while Prohibition de-stabilizes society. The call for prohibition actually worsens the situation it is intended to amend. We have grand historical proof in the alcohol prohibition era and the current other-substances prohibition era that the solution of prohibition has exactly the opposite effect from solving drug abuse problems.

The argument from majority opinion

In the United States of America, Constitutional guarantees, intended to protect minority opinions in a democratic society, are meaningless if society does not maintain the guarantees. But the intended protections should apply even when the majority holds that some speech, religion, or other private liberty should be suppressed.

When the majority held that slavery should be legal, that didn't make slavery moral or right. One of the reasons we have a Bill of Rights is an attempt (now largely vitiated) to protect us from just such abuse by the majority. The lesson of repeal of the twenty-first amendment should be universally applied, not just to alcohol, but to all comparable recreational substance use.

The Golden Rule and Prohibition

Prohibition condemns (presumes guilty until proven guilty) all users on the basis of the possibility that an individual's personal choice may affect society negatively. Such inappropriate grouping is a truly dangerous "drug" — a narcotic habit of thought — which ignores individual responsibility for one's actions.

The Golden Rule has several aspects. The older, passive form: Don't do to others what you would not have done unto you; the higher, active form: Do unto others what you would have done unto you; and the highest form: Love one another as God loves. At any level, wisdom is required. A stupid man might be attracted to a woman in lust and by attacking her sexually think he is applying the "Do unto others" rule. I presume my readers understand that he is not. I offer this illustration simply to show that wisdom is required in interpretation and action, and there are many more subtle and less easily discernable interpretation questions in dealing with such a general rule. Socialism is like that misguided lust-driven man, attempting to do unto others "for their own good" in violation of personal liberty.

One rule, the Golden Rule, is the principle "upon which hang all the laws," in good government. The Golden Rule is the basis for the social compact, and the succinct argument against drug prohibition. If using drugs constitutes a sin, that is between the individual and the Almighty's appointed Judges. If one uses drugs and transgresses upon another, by stealing, threatening, or the like, then that is a matter for earthly judges. Drinking a beer is legal. Driving dangerously (drunk or not, but especially drunk) is illegal. These comport with the Golden Rule. Smoking a joint ought, by parallel, to be legal. If someone wants to trash his or her own body and mind with nicotine, caffine, refined sugar, red meat, heroin, cocaine, sniffing gasoline or glue, that ought to be an individual adult choice. Don't force me to breath, drink, or shoot your drugs, and you're welcome to them. Come near my family in a demented state, or attempt to induce my children to doing such drugs, and you are subject to the consequences of my defense!

The Golden Rule is respect for one another. As it's been put, the right to swing your fist ends where the other fellow's nose begins (or more accurately, where you threaten the other fellow's nose). Don't do to others what you would not have done unto you. The thief, bully, and tyrant seek to take license (impose their will) at the expense of another, violating the liberty of another to be free from theft, threat, and force.

Not all people always live in harmony with their neighbors, of course. Many people live in relative harmony, many would never violate the liberty of another. Policing, in one form or another, is only necessary to control those who violate the Golden Rule of mutual respect for life, liberty, and property.

The Golden Rule social compact is simple, even if instances and enforcement are not always cut-and-dried. The right to blow your smoke ends where my nose begins. If a heroin user can maintain with a money hole in his arm and without violating the rights of others (and some do), it's not others' problem. When one crosses the line into theft, threat, or violence, whether or not drugs are involved the crime is transgression, not substance use. Drinking is legal and reasonably so; the drunk driver weaving down the road, the drunk vomiting on my shoes, the drunk and abusive spouse or parent, these violate the rule. Only an arbitrary social attitude (and the politicking profiteers and propagandists of both legal booze and illegal other substances) differentiates between this drug and others.

In summary:

Use should be a free personal choice.

Abuse is a personal, mental, and medical problem, for individual, family, church, or business.

Criminality — transgression against others — involving use or abuse — is still criminality, but use or even abuse in and of itself should not be.

This page was discovered to have been linked in a comment on BlogCritics.org, although it only seems to be visible with JavaScript off.

Related Mindful Webworks:
Prohibition fuels gangsterism —It's not drugs but PROHIBITION which provides the fuel for the modern equivalent of rum-runner profits and Al Capones.
Independent Religionist's Liberty — are USA Constitutional liberties not being extended to non-aligned religionists?
Repeal! / Repeal Heals — not only is the so-called war on drugs utterly unwinnable, it is in its very conception a
perversion of the important purposes of good government. The way to personal or social health is positive.
A run-in with Officer Green"WHAT'S THAT SMELL??" scowled Officer Green, and ordered me out of my car.
Head Shop — Cartoons, songs, and more regarding the appeal of indulgences and the consequences of desire.




Urantiana

Is it unreasonable to be disaster-ready in a world which has regularly seen disaster?

Fellows in the revelation:

Seven years before I was born, atomic explosives were used to kill humans for the first time, and for the last time. Since that time, we have seen wars and rumors of wars, and a proliferation of nuclear weaponry. We have seen a Cold War end up with nuclear sabre-rattling several times, come thisclose to all-out atomic war. Despite some relief in the Cold War tensions, humanity still has enough nuclear firepower to lay waste to civilization, and sufficient international hostility to initiate such suicidal war. It is not humanity's fellowship and love which has so far prevented atomic weaponry from again being used against fellowkind; rather, it is self-preservation. If Pakistan decides to nuke India, Pakistan is likely to suffer just as much. All nations, by and large, are healthy and wealthy and sane enough, even the most crazy nations, that sustained civilization is better than nuclear suicide.

But this precious fearful balance may not hold. There is no reason to presume that nuclear explosives won't be used again to kill fellow humans. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have stood as warning against another world war, and the nations of the world have been more than ever forced to arbitrate their disputes, or at least confine them to conventional weapons. But all nuclear disaster requires is one world leader, someone slightly more bent than the media depiction of Saddam Hussein for example, or some vengeful terrorist group who feel that a major city is far enough away from their homeland that they could use a nuke, and off the map go millions of people.

All-out nuclear war is not as likely a scenario as a terrorist nuke at this time. The nations may very well restrain themselves and continue to grow into supernations and even ultimately a world government, passing what Jesus' paraphrased Urmia lectures^ call that most dangerous point, without resort to nuclear war. A scenario of terrorists nuking a city… or two… is all too likely, however.

Currently, we have a Soviet general claiming that some hundred suitcase-size Soviet nukes are missing. Both Russia and the US have hastened to say the Soviets never had such nukes, much less are any missing, but (1) they could be just trying to allay panic and (2) there could very well be such small nukes on the international black market regardless of the source.

I am not trying to incite fear. The last time the Cold War came close to going hot, ABC-TV had a dramatization of a nuclear war, the major news magazines all had cover stories on nuclear war, and a prominent Urantia Book preacher convinced many that nuclear war was imminent, sell your goods and head for the caves. The response which Mary Jo and I had to that threat was to restate our faith in the continuance of civilization in the most dramatic way we could — to have another child. In response we got two children, and we named those twin boys Michael and Christopher. I would want them, their older sister, their children, and all the world's children, to see continuing civilization, without ever seeing another Hiroshima. I live as if we will have this continuing civilization.

But I also recognize that wishful thinking and even prayer do not necessarily affect reality. World War III is really too all-consuming to care about — if it comes to that, we're back to the caveman days, at best, and it'll be so devastating it won't really matter what happens. But a little bit of nuclear war, say a regional conflict in Southeast Asia (putting it at a good distance from myself — Southeast Asians might want to put it in South America), or a terrorist nuking of a major Western city, that could cause severe problems enough. Responses to such an attack might include tyrannical restrictions of civil liberties, and we might all be suffering severe effects of radiation or other physical consequences.

As I say, I don't mean to cause distress. When we hear a Grim message that nuke war is going to happen, and then it doesn't, there's a tendency to relax, to say, "whew! false alarm," (or "I knew it wouldn't happen" or "Gee! Our prayers were answered and it didn't happen") and get on with the everyday. There's also, for some, considerable education that the efforts toward self-preservation, besides being mostly foolish, were also vain. Are followers of Jesus really willing to hide in our nuclear shelters, shoot our suffering neighbors to defend our canned goods, and otherwise play the game that height-of-the-Cold-War 1950s-fashion way?

When the thought adjuster attempts to flash its message across to our minds, we often get the flash accompanied by all sorts of less-inspired static. One might get a flash about preparedness against a disaster, for example, and the brain will mischievously add on details never included in the original message — where to hide out, when it will happen, who should be told (or not told). When the non-inspired matters prove to be dirty bathwater, out it goes along with the baby of truth contained therein. I'm not saying that by this I believe there was a germ of truth in the unfortunate affair the Urantia Moovement suffered years ago. I just acknowledge the possibility.

Besides nuclear disasters, we have plenty of other threats which might come upon us suddenly. The too-recent Iraqi conflict demonstrated that some folks are still too willing to unleash chemical and biological weapons, which can be more widely devastating than would a local nuclear bomb. Nature can out-do small nukes easily, with (for North American examples) the anticipated San Andreas "Big One," or the less-well known but as-anticipated Madrid earth-shaker which could devastate numerous cities the unprepared heartland of America. An asteroid smaller than the one that is alleged to have hit the Yucatan millions of years ago could still have catastrophic consequences.

Okay, what's the point, fellow truth-seekers and love-doers? Panic and anxiety are not reasonable reactions. Fear is stupid. But should we dismiss preparedness as vain? Is it unreasonable to be disaster-ready in a world which has seen regular disasters all along? Stocking up on food and water may not do us much good if hoardes of hungry neighbors overrun us, and having plenty of fresh batteries for your flashlights and fuel for your heater isn't sensible if you're at ground zero. In such extreme cases, preparedness won't help. Those whose love-inspired charity would not let them preserve their own family while watching fellows die for want of food or medicine would have to make hard decisions in a real disaster. If you're the only family in miles that was ready, you might as well have been unready.

Does this argue against preparedness, though? There are civil defense folks (one example^) who have been striving (mostly in vain) to prepare cities like Chicago and Memphis for the very real possibility of a horrific repeat of the Madrid quake of the early 1800s. Should Noah^ not have followed his own advice to build his house as a boat and take the animals on-board at night during the flood seasons, just because all his neighbors were deaf to his wisdom?

My belief is, disaster will come. It could be local, or it could be worldwide. It could be financial or physical. The ongoing continuous civilization of the past, oh, several centuries, say, is no guarantee that we won't suffer a major setback to civilization. Sometimes we can avoid problems. A Jew in central Europe in the late 1930s might have had enough sense to get one's immediate family out of the way of the oncoming holocaust, and some did. But it can be a bit harder to dodge an unexpected nuke, biological weapons, or an asteroid.

Can you grow your own food? Do you have a water well? Is your shelter strong and secure enough? Do you have fuel and resources to survive for days, or even years, in case of emergency? If not, then, basically, you're running a risk. It may seem an acceptable risk, as year after year you live in relative peace and health, but if you are caught up in an Event, you may wish you'd had insurance. It is not human nature to prepare for winter like ants but rather to play like grasshoppers until the frost. The government widely advertised and promoted low-cost flood insurance in anticipation of flooding that hit Northern America recently, and few were interested.

Even if there's just a small localized disaster, your preparedness may make the difference between life and death for your family or even your neighbors, depending on circumstances. It's rather like fastening your seat belt in a car. A bad enough wreck, a seat belt won't help. Certain wrecks, you'd be better off without a seat belt. But statistically, you should wear it. This is wisdom. And the higher powers, I am given to understand, aren't always all that helpful to those who refuse to act on their light of knowledge and wisdom.

Regardless of whether the Armegeddonists have it right or wrong, preparedness is wise in this world. Faith is good. Trust is important. We cannot save ourselves in all circumstances, and we should always live in principle, act in love, and be so unattached to the world that it doesn't matter if the earth itself should pass away (wow! that asteroid's so big, all we can do is sing psalms until it hits). But we are also given this life, and just as we budget for next week's bills (or ought to — sometimes I have trouble making ends meet), so we would be wise to protect ourselves and our families as much as possible.

This has been a message from your local universe civil defense preparedness organization. This is a test. This is only a test. Had this been a real emergency, you would be wishing you'd stocked up on canned goods, bottled water, and energy sources. (Or, maybe, if it was emergency enough, as the old joke goes, you'd get underneath your desk, stick your head between your legs, and kiss your a$$ goodbye.)

Beep repaired!




Urantiana

Drawing on some quotations from the Urantia Papers

Links refer to the Urantia Papers online and open in a separate window.^

"Jesus taught the twelve always to pray in secret; to go off by themselves amidst the quiet surroundings of nature or to go in their rooms and shut the doors when they engaged in prayer." [UP144 §3 ¶14] Jesus himself "went out in the hills to pray so many times because there were no private rooms suitable for his personal devotions." [UP145 §5 ¶2] We are instructed to keep personal devotions private.

Jesus said to the apostles: "…when you pray, go apart by yourselves and use not vain repetitions and meaningless phrases." And "…be not given to fasting with a sad countenance to be seen by men." [UP140 §6 ¶11] Obviously, the self-vaunting kind of public praying (or braying) is what's disapproved here.

Jesus "did not fully approve of the practice of uttering set and formal prayers" [UP144 §1 ¶10] and a Brilliant Evening Star likewise decries that even today "You address one another in common, everyday language, but when you engage in prayer, you resort to the older style of another generation, the so-called solemn style" [UP87 §6 ¶14]. Jesus "rarely uttered his prayers as spoken words. Practically all of Jesus' praying was done in the spirit and in the heart — silently." [UP144 §4 ¶10] Such informality and spirituality is more characteristic of personal communion than group prayer.

"But prayer need not always be individual. Group or congregational praying is very effective in that it is highly socializing in its repercussions. When a group engages in community prayer for moral enhancement and spiritual uplift, such devotions are reactive upon the individuals composing the group; they are all made better because of such participation. Even a whole city or an entire nation can be helped by such prayer devotions. Confession, repentance, and prayer have led individuals, cities, nations, and whole races to mighty efforts of reform and courageous deeds of valourous achievement." [UP91 §5 ¶2]

Them's mighty potent words, eh? Moreover, "There is a certain danger associated with overmuch private praying which is corrected and prevented by group praying, community devotions." [UP91 §7 ¶13] As he was about to resurrect his friend Lazarus from the dead, Jesus prayed aloud, and if that wasn't for some good effect upon those at hand who were grieving, then why do it? Jesus prayed, "because of those who stand here with me, I thus speak with you, that they may believe…." [UP168 §2 ¶2]

Point 11 in a list of points Jesus emphasized at Jotapata includes this: "Let your real petitions always be in secret. Do not let men hear your personal prayers. Prayers of thanksgiving are appropriate for groups of worshipers, but the prayer of the soul is a personal matter. There is but one form of prayer which is appropriate for all God's children, and that is, 'Nevertheless, your will be done.'" [UP146 §2 ¶12] So there's the difference between personal and public praying.

Group prayer, that is to say group petition as opposed to prayers of thanksgiving, would seem to be for group or community purposes, or for those things beyond the individual's ability. At any rate, prayer "has been wrongly emphasized by modern religions, much to the neglect of the more essential communion of worship. The reflective powers of the mind are deepened and broadened by worship. Prayer may enrich the life, but worship illuminates destiny." [UP102 §4 ¶5]

"In the old order you fasted and prayed;
as the new creature of the rebirth of the spirit,
you are taught to believe and rejoice."

—Jesus [UP143 §2 ¶3]




Best of Spirits

Touching on the age-old question of partiality in a universe centered on a Perfect One, especially as relating to death

An old religious contention regards the "problem" of the joy of human relationships, and their loss in time.

Buddha doubtless rebelled at the fantastic and mystical in religion of his day, and came out with a clean and wonderful religion, of sorts, without God. I greatly admire it, for the most part, at least as I understand it. (Some, especially one sometime debate opponent, might tell you I know nothing about Buddhism, really, and I'll be the first to admit I've not studied it, scholastically.)

A Buddhist might tell you that those relationships you and I find valuable are attachments which cause suffering, and we ought to be free of such attachments, but to me this runs counter to all that is truly valuable about human experience. It's certainly true that grieving relentlessly over the deceased is unhealthy, and other personal attachments. But when one has faith in God, one may bear the pain of mortal death without unhealthy suffering, because one knows that in a universe based, not on random nihilism but on divine values, justice, truth, beauty, goodness between fellows, a good God will not let us come into existence, know life and joy and love, and become extinguished. This faith in future eternal existence is often confused by dualistic philosophies which damn some to hell for not toeing some doctrinal line or other, the kind of problems which Buddha originally rejected. But despite philosophic problems which can be resolved, despite superstitious reactions to the God-concept which can be eschewed, and other problems, it remains true that if God is, if God is good, God loves and saves us, and there is nothing of this in Buddhism.

I rather like the nigh-Buddhistic attitude I once read in a Jewish book on death and dying. There is faith without the kind of Christian assurance of survival or at least without the somewhat primitive approach of some Christians of winning your way into heaven by adherance to some doctrine or other. Rather, it was an attitude of "If God wills." In a sense, this is detachment from concern about the "next life," leaving this life as primary, to do one's work for today. God is the most Zen of all.

— — —

Don't expect me to answer the grand old question of how a good God would permit evil in the universe in one Religion Forum message! [grin] I will, however, give you the shortest form I can of what I consider the basic points:

1) If God let us come into existence, know life and joy and love, and become extinguished, I would not consider that God a worthy Father, but some kind of being less moral than a plain old loving earthly father. If the universe is based on such a madcap deity, I'll be just as happy to not live to know it.

2) Evil and pain and anguish in the evolutionary universes of time and space are all relative. Some are due to our own or others' bad choices, some are due to our material existence. That God allows material existence and bad choices is not something I consider inherently evil. When a child stubs his toe, it is overwhelming anguish and blinding to all else. When an adult does the same, it's only stubbing the toe. While the grand evils our world has seen can hardly be comparable, the relativity concept is equally applicable. In the long view, the eternal view, sickness is nothing, corruption is partial and part of the whole growth of our universe, and death is meaningless when we have survived it. To understand these things in this life takes more than reason and observation--it takes faith in the ideal of God.




Pages