OM is fundamentally an orientation/position of profound gratitude.
All living beings lose the essence of their life properties eventually: this is defined by the particular configuration of the atoms and molecules in their body and around them that enable life functioning. Once this configuration (really configurations) is disrupted, the descending OM begins.
The beginning of the OM is of course the first moments of existence, i.e. the particular configuration manifested in the post-contact reality of egg and sperm, pollen and germ cell. Note, this says absolutely nothing at all about the moral status of such a configuration, merely that this is the first utterance of the OM. This is true of every living being.
Taken from The Treatise on Other Spiritual Wisdom, Gilla Artenis
"O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell
Hail Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death. Amen."
With the Holy Spirit and Power
Your voice echoes in the Church
Now shaking
Now shivering
Flanked by aged pillars of flesh
Now rising
Now shrieking
The Host unmoving
All approving
Now tearing
Now rending
Your robes descending
"O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell"
Now burning
Now writhing
Our seats aflame
"O my Jesus"
"O my Jesus"
Save us from the fires of this ecstasy
"Forgive us our sins"
We cannot undo them
Save us from the fires of this ecstasy ora pro nobis peccatoribus now and at the hour of our death
“Nothing is more intolerable than publicly employed guardians of morals. Whoever acts with a pure heart is always the first to be misunderstood by the people with the moral and religious yardstick.” – Hegel
we sing new stories
(far from holy books)
by mountain peaks or
shining brooks
we breathe ourselves
between the pages
gone the cages of
un-holy systems
no more the victims of
another's vision we haveinner sight
brightly glowing with
an earthly light
Those who say love should be "properly oriented" know little about love or its potential. Augustine thought love should be oriented to the one unchangeable being, ie God, for all other things are subject to change and therefore lacking in perfection. But he failed to realize that love demonstrates its true power in being directed at the changeable.
"He demonstrated his love in this: that while we were still sinners..."
But love was betrayed by those later writers who made a mockery of this demonstration by having Jesus "ascend into the clouds" while his disciples stood gaping at love raised to the level of an abstraction. His followers were left to love Love.
There are many different religious traditions, and they all hold their beliefs regarding the universe, human creatures, the meaning of life, etc., to be more or less correct.
Many of these religious traditions are quite ancient. Even though they presume to be divinely guided, the recipients of revelation, witnesses of miracles, etc., the only evidence they have is the testimony of others, passed on from generation to generation, and anecdotal stories that seem to support their assumptions.
What if starting today you choose to set aside the old traditions about deities and spirits, and look at the world with these beliefs bracketed or unassumed? Would the gods or God make an appearance at all? Without your former presuppositions, would you find even a hint of the old gods in the world around you?
This is a challenge to those who have received their beliefs from others. What do you see if you use your own eyes?
Against the accusation that non-believers are inconsistent by enjoying life rather than despair that their lives are meaningless without God or an afterlife.
Recently a friend challenged me thus: "Do you not act inconsistently, or not understand the full implications of atheism, when you fail to appreciate the import of a life that has no meaning, that will cease to be forever, whose works will all come to naught? It seems to me that atheists should be a much more despairing group of people."
This, as I have mentioned elsewhere, is a very religious understanding of atheism. It already takes God as its starting point, a ground from which to make comparisons. For believers in God atheism is a negative, a subtraction. For non-believers it is no such thing, for there is nothing to subtract their perspective from. One must already have the existence of a God in order for his non-existence to draw the meaning of life away. For this reason one should be careful to see through the supposed argument to its root, what the interrogator is really saying: "I can't imagine life without God. My life would have no meaning without God, therefore yours shouldn't either." But this says little more than for this one, God has meaning. I can accept the first part of this argument, but not the second. I find it strange that a Christian would try to convince me life is meaningless because I do not believe in eternal life or a deity. In essence they are trying to convince me my hermeneutic of death is mistaken and that a proper atheist interpretation would see death as a meaning-vacuum, or a meaning-destroyer, and thus my life should consistently reflect the implications of this meaninglessness, i.e. I should hold a nihilistic attitude toward life. Fundamentally then we see the idea of God simultaneously sets up the possibility of a thoroughgoing nihilism.
Regarding death, even a cursory glance at the writings of antiquity reveals alternative views to the one held by my skeptical friend. For example, Lucretius: "Do you not know that in real death there will be no second you, living to lament your death and standing by your corpse?" From Seneca: "Life itself is neither a good nor an evil: life is where good or evil find a place, depending on how you make it for them." And from Montaigne (in the guise of Nature): "Truly imagine how much less bearable for Man, and how much more painful, would be a life which lasted for ever rather than the life which I have given you. If you did not have death you would curse me, for ever, for depriving you of it."
Why must I view death in the morose and nihilistic way my friend was convinced I should see it? Why not rather "eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" (St. Paul)? What I know is that I live. I have this life right before me. My friend, however, does not have even this evidence in support of her beliefs and ideas. If there is inconsistency, surely it lies with the notions of a God or eternal life, things that cannot be found anywhere in the world or nature, but merely as two of many ideas regarding supernatural matters. One might add, why are there not more Christians taking out full page ads in the paper, paying for multiple blocks of radio and television time, to warn people of eternal hell (no matter how the host of its cultured defenders would like to interpret it)? Perhaps the charge of inconsistency could function here as a mirror into which my friend should gaze intently, and with care.
"Now when something is revealed to us we see it, and the response to this revelation is not faith in the unseen or hope in Divine promises but vision, seeing face to face after we have been seeing through a glass darkly. Vision is the end of religion, and the destruction of the physical universe is the clearing of our own eyesight." Northrop Frye
Our basic starting point is the world. Previously we have been told our basic starting point is something other than this. The world is all we know. We are born, grow, and decline within it. By “world” one might think I mean the planet Earth. While it is true I shall never leave it, the planet itself would not be possible without those forces and spaces that exist outside it, act upon it, and situate it. For this reason our spiritual orientation should not be narrowly focussed on the Earth, but the COSMOS. By “focussed on” I do not mean in any way to seize upon something, but rather to open oneself up to possibility.
6
Everything we need comes from the world. All sustenance, joys, meaning, truths, all revelations and visions, have always come from the world. If this were not so we would not know it. Even the gods must use the voice of Nature to speak: in visions perceived by brains, words, rumblings, lights, plants, fire, or even swirling tea leaves. All belong to Nature. Without the world we hear nothing.
7
To perceive we must direct ourselves to the world. The world speaks to us in a multitude of ways. Some ways of perceiving are direct while others are indirect. To see an oak tree is a more direct perception than to hear a description of it from a friend. But to hear of an oak tree from a friend is more direct than to learn of a general category such as “tree” from a textbook or lecture. The particular vision of a thing is always preferred to an abstraction.
8
Ninety-nine percent of religious doctrine is abstraction.
When we start with the question, “Is there a God?” we already presume too much. It’s as if an answer has been given before the question was even asked. On what basis do we ask the question? Where did this idea come from: God? It was offered to us. It didn’t come from ourselves. It was ready-made. Have we not grown weary of believing, without reflection, in the ready-made?
2
Kant opened his famous essay on the Enlightenment with these words: “Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbstverschuldeten Unmündigkeit” (Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity). He continues: “Unmündigkeit ist das Unvermögen, sich seines Verstandes ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen” (Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another). The religious, on the other hand, think that accepting the ready-made on faith is one of the greatest virtues: “Lean not on your own understanding, but trust in God with all your heart” (Proverbs 3:5). Religion is the antithesis of the Enlightenment i.e. the antithesis of human emergence.
3
The basic starting point of any spiritual investigation is human experience. To be even more clear: the basic starting point is individual experience. Neither my friend’s experience, nor the experience of a man living in the wilderness two thousand years ago teaches me anything about the shape my own experience should take. They are never prescriptive. At best they offer demonstrations of various possibilities. Even here these possibilities are often marked by some previous imposition of religious structure (which is by nature a delimitation).
4
The vast majority of religious adherents never have profound spiritual experiences. They go to mosque, synagogue, church, or temple and rehearse the same ritualistic motions day after day, week after week. This monotonous rehearsal often makes up the greatest part of religious life. The multitude is content to allow the true spiritual experience be the special privilege of the religious founder, the religious genius. They think he or she is exceptional by nature when in fact the religious genius has an exceptional will.
On the one hand I was happy with the direction and fulfillment of my Christian life; on the other hand, my intellectual doubts were sprouting all over. Faith and reason began a war within me. And it kept escalating. I would cry out to God for answers, and none would come. Like the lonely heart who keeps waiting for the phone to ring, I kept trusting that God would someday come through. He never did.
The only proposed answer was faith, and I gradually grew to dislike the smell of that word. I finally realized that faith is a cop-out, a defeat—an admission that the truths of religion are unknowable through evidence and reason. It is only indemonstrable assertions that require the suspension of reason, and weak ideas that require faith. Biblical contradictions became more and more discrepant, and apologist arguments became more and more absurd. When I finally discarded faith, things
became more and more clear.
But don't imagine that this was an easy process. It was like tearing my whole frame of reality to pieces, ripping to shreds the fabric of meaning and hope, betraying the values of existence. It hurt badly. It was like spitting on my mother, or like throwing one of my children out a window. It was sacrilege. All of my bases for thinking and values had to be restructured. Adding to that inner conflict was the outer conflict of reputation. Did I really want to discard the respect I had so carefully built over so many years with so many important people? But even so, I couldn't be distracted from the questions that had come to the forefront. Finally, at the far end of my theological migration, I was forced to admit that there is no basis for believing that a god exists, except faith, and faith was not satisfactory to me. I did not lose my faith—I gave it up purposely. The motivation that drove me into the ministry—to know and speak the truth—is the same that drove me out.
Nay, and of hearts which follow other gods
In simple faith, their prayers arise to me,
O Kunti's Son! though they pray wrongfully;
For I am the Receiver and the Lord
Of every sacrifice, which these know not
Rightfully; so they fall to earth again!
Who follow gods go to their gods; who vow
Their souls to demi-gods go to demi-gods; minds
To spirits and ghosts given o'er sink to such things;
And whoso loveth Me cometh to Me.
Whoso shall offer Me in faith and love
A leaf, a flower, a fruit, water poured forth,
That offering I accept, lovingly made
With pious will. Whate'er thou doest, Prince!
Eating or sacrificing, giving gifts,
Praying or fasting, let it all be done
For Me, as Mine. So shalt thou free thyself
From Karmabandh, the chain which holdeth men
To good and evil issue, so shalt come
Safe unto Me- when thou art quit of flesh-
By faith and abdication joined to Me!
I am alike for all! I know not hate,
I know not favour! What is made is Mine!
But them that worship Me with love, I love;
They are in Me, and I a friend to them!
Happy impending Ragnarök everybody! It was nice knowing you.
(My house for the afterparty)
Translation Wodan Heerst
Wodan knew where he would go, traveled through weather and wind
Past giant's mountain and shadow-filled valleys
To Mimir's spring, at the foot of Yggdrasil
Where Wodan came to get never ending wisdom
No other man would drink from the spring, so was fate
Only one prize/price* would reward the man
Wodan offered Mimir his eye, should he see better
What that is will yet come to us
Unending, your rage, your wisdom is great
Grant us your blessing, the enemy death
No fear of dying, your people fearless
The world will know that Wodan rules
Unending, your rage, your wisdom is great
Grant me your knowledge of life and death
Open my eyes, unshackle my spirit
And I will know that Wodan rules
Wodan hang in the tree, himself wounded with a spear
A sacrifice to receive the wisdom of the runes
Plagued by his hunger and thirst for nine nights long
So/in this way he made the runes his own
The runescript, the magic script, he gave to the people of Midgard
A gift to us who fight with his blessing
Now we carve the runes in our sword for victory in the battle
Valkyries we see riding through the heavens
From the heavens stare two ravens
They peer over our dark, flat land
And they see how Wodan's people awaken
With Wodan's blessing we go to battle
We reach for the sword, the spear and the seax
The enemy hears how our people yell a battlecry
From our throats sounds the songs
They sing of the Allfather's wisdom and power
And we see how the old god awakens
The cowardly enemy fears for our wrath
We fight for victory and otherwise death
And we see how Wodan lives in us
The starting point of our theological investigation is not whether there is a definitive proof for the existence of God (there can be no such empirical proof), but allowing that God exists, what can be definitively said about such a being. We find, apart from the formal and thoroughly socialized subjective fantasies and wishful thinking of a great many people, that there isn't a hell of a lot. We find the god of the churches almost undeniably does not exist. This has been realized in the West for almost 300 years, and this by theologians themselves! Where it hasn't been realized one continues to find the most powerful illusion at work, propagated by laypeople and theological upstarts, pastors and other parasitical people of "good intention" (at least initially), not to mention a programme of systemic indoctrination in the form of emotive collective music, sermons, and what amounts to religious self-help literature.
The strongest "proof" this God doesn't exist: He hasn't saved the Christians from Christianity.
“This attitude is not faith. It is pure idolatry. The more deceptive idols are not images of wood and stone but are constructed of words and ideas and mental images of God. Faith is an openness and trusting attitude to truth and reality, whatever it may turn out to be. This is a risky and adventurous state of mind.” Alan Watts
What is the privileged status of male-female marriage?
I will say from the beginning that it has no intrinsically privileged status. During the present gay marriage debate in the United States I've heard the phrase "sanctity of marriage" used by religious factions, without a single definition of what this means, other than the formula: "One man, one woman." This formula doesn't give us the meaning of the term "sanctity" but it must be related to it. I think when a Christian speaks about the sanctity of marriage what they must really mean is that in its founding moment (think Adam and Eve), God blessed the union of a man and a woman, i.e. his intention was that this fundamental relationship be comprised of male and female. Furthermore, from the theology of the Christian scriptures one can derive a notion of marriage whereby the partners in a relationship have analogical significance, i.e. man=Christ, woman=Church etc. Christian marriage is the sign of some greater spiritual reality. Insofar as a Christian believes this it is sanctified, though a Christian will maintain that whether or not they believe it it is still sanctified. This is their belief.
So a marriage that is sanctified is one that is pleasing to God (and therefore blessed by him). What is pleasing to God? What scriptures tell us is pleasing to God, what pattern one sees there, what tradition holds to be the case. One who opposes gay marriage will not say love sanctifies a marriage, because obviously gay couples love one another, or one will qualify love by adding a "male-female" in front of it. But we now know that gender is to a large extent socially-culturally constructed, and I don't know many Christians who would want to reduce the sanctity of marriage to the interaction of sexual organs (or at least admit to it). No, marriage for these is about God, a qualified kind of love, and scripture. I won't waste my time commenting on how a qualified love is a rather sad pretender to the real thing. When you look into the eyes of your beloved, tell me, is the first thing that comes to mind "thank God you're the proper sexual orientation"?
This still doesn't answer the question asked at the beginning. "Sanctity of marriage" turns out to mean little more than "sanctity of my definition of marriage." This can never be the ground for a universal determination or privileged status.
