conservatism

[Guest guest]

says:

>>Is that wry humor, ? I hadn't supposed that

rc s 'wanted to' beat women for just the sake of it,

but as a means to the end of 'feeling like men'.

It's their definition of 'manhood' I believe to be the

flaw.<<

--It's the separation of elements integral to the

psyche into " territories " that one gender or the other

can covet. Women often feel morally superior to men,

and it brings out the rage in men. Men often feel

intellectually superior to women, and it drives women

crazy. Either way, they're playing the same kind of

tug-of-war, and there's no real need for it in a

healthy subculture where males and females are both

able to access their own kind of wholeness.

>>When my European ex struck me in the breast with his

fist when

pregnant and the next day justified it by saying " It

shut you up didn't it? " <<

--That's when you kick him in the balls. Just kidding,

depending on your level of martial arts experience.

>>I feel that many rc s believes are of similar ilk

such as the death penalty.<<

--Death penalty supporters literally don't know what

it means spiritually to put someone to death using

state power from a distance, because they are focused

on fear of crime and the belief that the death penalty

is a valid deterrent. The simple logic of " an eye for

an eye " is compelling to people who are afraid, and it

may even relate to genetic programs unearthed when the

threads of civilization begin to fray. They need a way

to learn that doesn't involve the " typical, morally

superior liberal lecture " . When liberals feel superior

to conservatives, it brings out their shadow, and vice

versa. I'm not sure what lesson has to be learned, or

how, but I'm pretty sure lecturing death penalty

supporters and moralizing isn't working. Publicizing

cases of innocent people put to death, and people who

committed murder and then sincerely changed their

lives through religion or service to others, would

work better.

I'm just amazed that Christians don't consider what it

means to be " born again " , if they question the

validity of such a rebirth in someone who most needs

it because of the magnitude of their sin. Why be born

again, if you aren't judged by the character of the

person you are born into, rather than the character of

the " old flesh " ?

>>When the end justifies the means humanitarian

treatment tends to disappear.<<

--True.

>>Bush ordered the attack on Alfganistan with its

'collateral damage' to innocents when emotions were

running high in the

US because of 9/11 despite the fact that Alfganistan,

the country, hadn't attacked the US or its allies.<<

--I agreed with removing the Taliban by force. It was

harboring a mass murderer, there were close ties

between Al Qaeda and the ruling party, and the regime

was oppressing women, gays, intellectuals and others

with whom I sympathize. I do not criticize people who

take the position of unconditional nonviolence, but I

also don't criticize those who supported regime change

in Afghanistan. I did criticize the Iraq war before it

began, because I knew things wouldn't work out well

there unless the world were united and had the backing

of Arab and Muslim moderates. It was ethical to remove

Saddam by force, but not terribly practical, given the

risks.

>>With the shifting of the Supreme Court women are now

in danger of losing control over their own bodies.<<

--Actually, I think it will lead to clashes between

states, as women from states where abortion is banned

(assuming those states ban it after an SC ruling

allowing bans) cross state lines to get legal

abortions. Some women will be able to have abortions

legally, some won't. A national ban wouldn't pass, and

there is one bit of logic that anti-abortion activists

haven't thought about in advance: if abortion is

murder, then the proper penalty is death. Not just for

the doctor, but for the woman too, just as if she'd

hired someone to assassinate a family member. And

since that would be an outrage even to most

anti-abortion activists, at some point they will be

forced to admit that it's not as simple as murder.

Nobody wants to see women go to prison for life for

" murdering " a fetus.

>>The chances of joining the rest of the civilized

world in banning capital punishment - even for the

mentally deficient - is also greatly reduced.<<

--Possibly. But I think the whole fundamentalist

hard-line conservative thing has peaked, and will

embarrass itself back under its rock as progressives

pick up steam and moderate Republicans distance

themselves from the worst of their party. Don't be too

pessimistic, just yet.

>>Take the example of Sweden who outlawed corporal

punishment in 1979 before seeing to it that alternate

methods, education and understanding were in place.

The immediate result was a huge

increase in both child abuse and serious child

misbehavior.<<

--Cultural engineering isn't easy. People in general

need to understand that any radical change is an

experiment and will have unexpected results. Better

would be to study what enables some parents to avoid

corporal punishment, and then teach that to the people

who are using it and would change if they trusted the

alternatives. When liberals moralize, it just drives

conservatives farther into their shadow, so an

increase in child abuse doesn't surprise me there.

Their kids, in effect, would have seemed like

potential spies for the state, able to turn in their

parents for abuse at will. That would not have helped

empathy or trust between parent and child, and the

child would have been tagged with all the frustration

conservatives associate with state intrusion into

their lives.

Same problem when women become enemies of men, willing

to see the abuser in every male. That may create a

vacuum of suspicion leading to more abuse, although

the law can only measure physical assault, not

psychological damage. On the other hand, it's easy to

forgive a woman for being afraid of men, given the

physical disparity. Either way, it takes more than a

ban on assault to heal the wounds that lead to

assault, and it takes more than a ban on corporal

punishment (which I think can reasonably be considered

an assault, like slapping someone *else's* child) to

stop the abuse of children.

>>Changes urged by either side need to be implemented

only after careful study.<<

--Agreed. And the " states' rights " concept may work

well, if it enables experimentation on a smaller scale

so that disastrous outcomes on the national level are

less likely. Experimenting with state laws on

abortion, gay marriage and so on would provide genuine

facts and precedent to work with, rather than theory

or ideology. I'm pretty sure if abortion were banned

in some states, it would lead to real soul-searching

and a softer approach to abortion, and if gay marriage

were legal, the sky wouldn't fall in states that

legalized it.

>>One might say that this is the virture of the two

party system and of checks and balances.<<

--Except for the fact that we alternate between

extremes before settling on something reasonable that

works. But that's a lot better than a one-party

system, by far.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

conservatism

says:

>>Is that wry humor, ? I hadn't supposed that

rc s 'wanted to' beat women for just the sake of it,

but as a means to the end of 'feeling like men'.

It's their definition of 'manhood' I believe to be the

flaw.<<

--It's the separation of elements integral to the

psyche into " territories " that one gender or the other

can covet. Women often feel morally superior to men,

and it brings out the rage in men. Men often feel

intellectually superior to women, and it drives women

crazy. Either way, they're playing the same kind of

tug-of-war, and there's no real need for it in a

healthy subculture where males and females are both

able to access their own kind of wholeness.

>>When my European ex struck me in the breast with his

fist when

pregnant and the next day justified it by saying " It

shut you up didn't it? " <<

--That's when you kick him in the balls. Just kidding,

depending on your level of martial arts experience.

N: I was too stunned as my ideals crashed about me. I think the marriage

ended right then in any meaningful way. I now have a long running 'love

affair with Modesty Blaise.

>>I feel that many rc s believes are of similar ilk

such as the death penalty.<<

--Death penalty supporters literally don't know what

it means spiritually to put someone to death using

state power from a distance, because they are focused

on fear of crime and the belief that the death penalty

is a valid deterrent.

N: Odd that studies to the contrary receive so little weight. Perhaps they

view such studies as 'lying with statistics'.

The simple logic of " an eye for

an eye " is compelling to people who are afraid, and it

may even relate to genetic programs unearthed when the

threads of civilization begin to fray. They need a way

to learn that doesn't involve the " typical, morally

superior liberal lecture " . When liberals feel superior

to conservatives, it brings out their shadow, and vice

versa. I'm not sure what lesson has to be learned, or

how, but I'm pretty sure lecturing death penalty

supporters and moralizing isn't working. Publicizing

cases of innocent people put to death, and people who

committed murder and then sincerely changed their

lives through religion or service to others, would

work better.

N: Some years ago I finally tumbled to what it means to battle for moral

superiority. When I did I realized that not only did I and my ex do that

constantly but so did my parents. Enough self-righteousness to float a

battleship.

Since then it's been relatively easy to puncture those balloon before

takeoff by simply refusing to participate. Often it's largely a tonal

thing.

I'm just amazed that Christians don't consider what it

means to be " born again " , if they question the

validity of such a rebirth in someone who most needs

it because of the magnitude of their sin. Why be born

again, if you aren't judged by the character of the

person you are born into, rather than the character of

the " old flesh " ?

N: I had Bible Study today and was again impressed with how differently each

preceives Jesus. I take 'born again' to be 'walk in his footprints'. But

for some they seem to be a size 6 narrow and for others a size 13 wide. My

ownly hope of establishing a positive relationship seems to be through the

Gnostic Gospel and a growing conviction that most of the New Testiment had a

layer of righteousness protected on his words by the recording apostles -

men of their time.

>>When the end justifies the means humanitarian

treatment tends to disappear.<<

--True.

>>Bush ordered the attack on Alfganistan with its

'collateral damage' to innocents when emotions were

running high in the

US because of 9/11 despite the fact that Alfganistan,

the country, hadn't attacked the US or its allies.<<

--I agreed with removing the Taliban by force. It was

harboring a mass murderer, there were close ties

between Al Qaeda and the ruling party, and the regime

was oppressing women, gays, intellectuals and others

with whom I sympathize. I do not criticize people who

take the position of unconditional nonviolence, but I

also don't criticize those who supported regime change

in Afghanistan. I did criticize the Iraq war before it

began, because I knew things wouldn't work out well

there unless the world were united and had the backing

of Arab and Muslim moderates. It was ethical to remove

Saddam by force, but not terribly practical, given the

risks.

N: Gee, . Seems we've hit on one of those rare occasions when I

disagree with you. Of course I feel the world is a better place without the

Talaban and Saddam in power, but I don't condone I usurping the role of

panetary police - especially with so little world support. Where does it

stop? * (See list at bottom.)

>>With the shifting of the Supreme Court women are now

in danger of losing control over their own bodies.<<

--Actually, I think it will lead to clashes between

states, as women from states where abortion is banned

(assuming those states ban it after an SC ruling

allowing bans) cross state lines to get legal

abortions. Some women will be able to have abortions

legally, some won't. A national ban wouldn't pass, and

there is one bit of logic that anti-abortion activists

haven't thought about in advance: if abortion is

murder, then the proper penalty is death. Not just for

the doctor, but for the woman too, just as if she'd

hired someone to assassinate a family member. And

since that would be an outrage even to most

anti-abortion activists, at some point they will be

forced to admit that it's not as simple as murder.

Nobody wants to see women go to prison for life for

" murdering " a fetus.

N: I'm not so sure of that last. I live in the South and know some that

wouldn't flick an eyelash. As to traveling state to state for a legal

abortion, some won't be able to afford it. Nor do I feel as secure as you

that it won't be passed at a National level.

>>The chances of joining the rest of the civilized

world in banning capital punishment - even for the

mentally deficient - is also greatly reduced.<<

--Possibly. But I think the whole fundamentalist

hard-line conservative thing has peaked, and will

embarrass itself back under its rock as progressives

pick up steam and moderate Republicans distance

themselves from the worst of their party. Don't be too

pessimistic, just yet.

N: At the moment I, too, can see a milder trend. Just not sure it will

continue. Bush's election really showed how divided we are as a nation. I

don't feel the Dems have fielded a likely candidate in the last 8 years -

nor do I see one in the offing - that is both able and likely to win.

McCain may be the nearest thing and he has a circus act to resolve with a

foot on both the white and black horses.

>>Take the example of Sweden who outlawed corporal

punishment in 1979 before seeing to it that alternate

methods, education and understanding were in place.

The immediate result was a huge

increase in both child abuse and serious child

misbehavior.<<

--Cultural engineering isn't easy. People in general

need to understand that any radical change is an

experiment and will have unexpected results. Better

would be to study what enables some parents to avoid

corporal punishment, and then teach that to the people

who are using it and would change if they trusted the

alternatives. When liberals moralize, it just drives

conservatives farther into their shadow, so an

increase in child abuse doesn't surprise me there.

Their kids, in effect, would have seemed like

potential spies for the state, able to turn in their

parents for abuse at will. That would not have helped

empathy or trust between parent and child, and the

child would have been tagged with all the frustration

conservatives associate with state intrusion into

their lives.

N: I pretty much agree with the above, in so far as my predictive eye can

see.

Same problem when women become enemies of men, willing

to see the abuser in every male. That may create a

vacuum of suspicion leading to more abuse, although

the law can only measure physical assault, not

psychological damage. On the other hand, it's easy to

forgive a woman for being afraid of men, given the

physical disparity. Either way, it takes more than a

ban on assault to heal the wounds that lead to

assault, and it takes more than a ban on corporal

punishment (which I think can reasonably be considered

an assault, like slapping someone *else's* child) to

stop the abuse of children.

N: The man/woman thing, in which child rearing practices may well be rooted,

is a complex issue. I saw my mother ground into a fearful dementia by tiny

slights in an academic community with no respect for her fundamentalist

believes. I'm certainly not fond of the fundamentalist stance, but is it

reasonable or humaine to treat the holders with contempt? What really does

that say about us?

>>Changes urged by either side need to be implemented

only after careful study.<<

--Agreed. And the " states' rights " concept may work

well, if it enables experimentation on a smaller scale

so that disastrous outcomes on the national level are

less likely. Experimenting with state laws on

abortion, gay marriage and so on would provide genuine

facts and precedent to work with, rather than theory

or ideology. I'm pretty sure if abortion were banned

in some states, it would lead to real soul-searching

and a softer approach to abortion, and if gay marriage

were legal, the sky wouldn't fall in states that

legalized it.

N: Perhaps but those view are very intrenched. One might have to be patient

beyond a single lifetime.

>>One might say that this is the virture of the two

party system and of checks and balances.<<

--Except for the fact that we alternate between

extremes before settling on something reasonable that

works. But that's a lot better than a one-party

system, by far.

N: The troughs between wave are far more apparent to those at sea ;-)

Blessings,

* Notes of tyrants deserving future police action:

al-Bashir, Sudan

180,00 civilians killed and 2 million driven from their homes.

Kim Jong-il, North Korea

250,000 confined in 'reeduction camps'. Wide-spread malnutition.

Than Shwe, Burma

Leads the world in children as soldiers and forced labor . To drive by

the imprisioned home of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi is to

risk arrest.

Mugabe, Zimbabwe

World's highest inflation rate with 80% unemployment, HIV?AIDS rate over

20@, life expectancy has fallen from 62 to 38. 700,000 evicted from their

homes.

Islam Karimov, Usbekistan

Torture prisions, 10,000 gathering for 'rown meeting' attacked by his

army and hungreds of men, women and children massacred.

Hu Jintao, China

240,000-3000,000 political dissidents held in

" reeducation0through-labor " camps without trial. 95% criminal trials have no

witnesses and the conviction rate is 99.7% All communication monitored,

400,000 residents of Beijing evicted for the 2008 Olmpics preparations.

King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia

No freedom of comunication. By law all citizens must be Muslims. Police

routinely use torture. Surpression of women banned from pulic without a

male relative, must be totally covered, not allowed to drive.

Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan

Criticism = treason. 15,000 health-care workers replaced with untrained

military conscripts. All hospitals outside capital closed, physicians must

swear allegiance to him rather than Hippocratic Oath.

Seyed Ali Khamane'i, Iran

44% of cadidates disqualifyed so that his protoges might win. May veto

any law passed. Free press shut down, journalists tortured, execution of

homosexual males ordered.

Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Equatorial Guinea

Torture the normal means of investigation. No freedom of speech,

bookstores or newsstand. Oil revenues deposted in his private accts in the

US while citizens most live on less than $1 per day.

Muammar Al-Qaddafi, Libya

King Mswati III, Swaziland

Isayas Afewerki, Eritrea

Alksandr Lukashenko, Belarus

Fidel Castro

Bashar al-Assad, Syria

Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan

Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia

Boungnang Vorachith, Lao

Tran Duc Luong, Vietnam

If righteous envalion is the answer, where are we to stop and who is to

pay for it?

US Debt clock at:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

It's been rising at almost 9% per year for the last two years.

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Forgot this in my drafts folder.

I just wanted to say that there is another more common meaning for " born

again " .

It actually has nothing to do with one's morality, or 'walking in his

footsteps "

It is actually a pronounced experience of what the person calls G-d " It is

something that convinces the individual that a Supreme being actually

exists, and no longer has to be taken on faith.Jung says one knows.

Its result is a metanoia, true. One changes direction. But one is already a

religious person. This doesn't happen off the street. Even was already

religious when he fell off his horse.

This experience doesn't make a person " good " . It makes him a spiritual

seeker. His character doesn't change from one minute to the next. True once

in the presence of G-d, we see ourselves as we really are and judge

ourselves. But, because he is now finally completely convinced by his

experience he finds himself a " different person " and tries to become what he

already feels. Sometimes this change is for life. Jung felt it was for him.

Sometimes one's memory forgets and one returns to an everyday ordinary

member of the faith. No longer does one know...one has forgotten and must

once again believe.

Again " born again, baptized in the Spirit, " Twice born " are all the same

thing and All of them are actual experiences one has at one moment in one's

life.

We do not just go to church every Sunday, go to Sunday school and say the

creed. That makes us once born, and an ordinary everyday member of the

organization (if baptized). It does not in anyway give you an actual

experience which changes you in such a way you can say " before and 'after " as

you can once the experience has hit.

One cannot just slide into it which the orthodox Christian Churches of today

pass off as being Christian. It is not a rational belief one assumes, but a

real experience one has, and thereafter never needs to believe because one

knows.( what one knows is decided by ones experience and heredity and

environment in its manner, but it is G-d which one feels.)

This is what people in the days after Jesus believed. ( Pentecost) and it

was so until the organization of the church decided to get itself into the

middle so separating individual and Spirit by interposing itself and having

a ritual called baptism, after which one became a member of the church.Then

when that didn't do it, the church came up with " conformation "

One was not washing off sin, or resisting the devil. One actually felt the

presence of the Lord as did the apostles and every other early believer.

Then, as a result of this knowledge one changed one's life to accord with

the teachings Jesus left, or one feels within.

So that is what " born again " means to most people today. They nowadays walk

down the aisle is some churches to be blessed. But it can happen at home in

the bathtub also. Many people remember the day and the hour forever after.

The ordinary everyday churchgoer is not assumed to be born again even if

he/she acts angelic,saintly and obedient to every word. Most organizations

or people who believe in being " born again " take it to be a specific

experience after which they assent to the Truth.

Just thought I would explain, so when you meet someone who tells you he is

twice born or baptized in the spirit, you will understand what he means.

Actually many protestants ask when they meet in a churchly setting, or they

have asked me.

Toni

Original message, cut.

Re: conservatism

> N: I had Bible Study today and was again impressed with how differently

> each

> preceives Jesus. I take 'born again' to be 'walk in his footprints'. But

> for some they seem to be a size 6 narrow and for others a size 13 wide.

> My

> ownly hope of establishing a positive relationship seems to be through the

> Gnostic Gospel and a growing conviction that most of the New Testiment had

> a

> layer of righteousness protected on his words by the recording apostles -

> men of their time.

>

[Guest guest]

Re: conservatism

> N: I had Bible Study today and was again impressed with how differently

> each

> preceives Jesus. I take 'born again' to be 'walk in his footprints'. But

> for some they seem to be a size 6 narrow and for others a size 13 wide.

> My

> ownly hope of establishing a positive relationship seems to be through the

> Gnostic Gospel and a growing conviction that most of the New Testiment had

> a

> layer of righteousness protected on his words by the recording apostles -

> men of their time.

>

" Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings

may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

You know what? Take a lot of the terms away and you and I are on the same

page, going in the same direction but we speak different dialects to

understand ourselves and the world.

Yes, I know the South, and its often mangled meaning which unfortunately

often turns into self-righteousness, because i was always on the other end

of whatever message was to be received.( Some went so far as to tell me, I

couldn't be what I thought I was then, and that was accompanied by a sneer

at Catholicism which does not mention " born again "

No, I took my meaning from better sources, and that is also how I taught it,

since the Charismatic Renewal believes one " gets " the gifts of the Spirit

only after an experience called by others " born again " ( It changed my life,

my actions and sadly I lost my equilibrium. But that wasn't the fault of the

experience but how I allowed it to change my always terrible problem with

spiritual pride.)

Actually the meaning which is now used in so many books takes its name from

Scripture, but no one reads the rest of the passage.

I not only understand but completely agree that no one can tell another HOW

to come to truth, peace and acceptance, or even what Truth is. In fact i

cannot understand why it is the first question so many people ask of a new

acquaintance in the South I inhabited. I sluff it off by thinking " they

know not how self righteous they sound " and of course, I have then just

become judgmental. Can't win that way.

My daughter applied for a job at a Southern Baptist Church to teach swimming

to toddlers. She had " become " in name only a Southern Baptist because it

avoided fights with her then husband. Anyway the first thing the preacher

asked her was she born again. She answered as you do, and as i did, and said

she didn't need to because she had always believed. The preacher wouldn't

give her the job for which she was suited(accredited) because he said, that

wasn't good enough. One had to know the time, the day and the hour one was

reborn.This was Louisiana in the 1980's.

Dear , that is why I tried to explain how that phrase is used. I don't

and didn't ever want to convert anyone to that way.I completely believe (

why does no one ever believe me????) that one will find one's own way if one

is looking for it.

Life is supposed to be good we are taught ( most of us) and those who find

their own answers can live in peace and love...and I believe in joy. If one

doesn't live that way, perhaps one needs to search some more. Or perhaps

not, and just accept " What Is "

My only objective when speaking of my own way, is to explain where I am

coming from and what influences me the most. We can only give to others what

we possess as our own way. We do that in love to establish relationships,

not to try to force others to think our way.

It would be great if there was an injection called " faith " " truth " and "

happiness " I think we all have too many antibodies to accept another's

answers.

I have a 'thing " about trying to use precise terms so everyone will

understand what is meant, because most arguments come up over the little

meanings. For example, you use a different interpretation of " judging

oneself " as I see from your post. Or we see different parts of human nature.

I believe G-d does not ever judge us, but that in the sight of Absolute

Truth we will see ourselves as we are. That is what I mean by self judgment.

I do not say i will go away weeping or gnashing my teeth, or sinking into a

hole of despondency, or hitting myself over the head for being so " stupid "

dumb " terrible " selfish " whatever. I do often, however leave an incident

wishing I hadn't said something hurtful, non accepting or non loving. I know

it as soon as I have said it, and then it is too late to fix that one

instance. That kind of judging we all do, i think if we are thoughtful

people. We can call it self-knowing.

We all do enough if not too much of guilty verdicts of ourselves as it is.

G-d accepts us, blemishes and all. it is we who do not accept ourselves.

So you see we use that term differently and if we did not note it together

we might misunderstand each other's meaning.

And I used " good' as a relative term, always. Good as we personally see

good, and yes, individuation is involved in my meaning. As for Jung, I

mentioned him, because after rereading MDR so many times, I have a certain

" feeling " of how he approached spirituality in general and " his " idea of

knowing.

When anyone tries to explain the deepest feelings one has, there are only

words. And words are open to different interpretations depending on our own

experiences. It is impossible for me to tell anyone what my relationship to

the All is like...I can only point my finger in one direction. I cannot

explain love either. None of the words I use will be enough.

In fact we are taught, those that meditate that " thinking " is not way to

" get there "

But inside me I yearn to help others feel the way I sometimes do, mostly,

nowadays i guess. It is not my doing, never was, and I cannot " give " it to

another. all I can do is point. All I can say is when one is hungry enough

and willing to spend everything for that pearl of great price, everything

changes, and there is never anything to be afraid of. But see, I cannot do

it. Nobody really believes what I say and if they do, they say " good for

you, but it doesn't apply to me " . My only " out " is then giving them in love

to my G-d.

I learn a lot inside myself. if I ever expressed it everyone would laugh,

hate, envy, distrust, want or disbelieve. That is always human nature and I

am no different. All that is good within me comes from grace, and that grace

is available to anyone who wants it badly enough. It is said to be free....I

am not sure of that. i think we must give something in return...acceptance

of it, perhaps.

Anyway, please do not think I was trying to persuade you convert you,

harangue you, change you, whatever.

I wrote because I just noticed I could perhaps clarify some terms.And yes,

the " false self has got to go, or we remain in duality.

We will meet as we are both heading the same way, and all of us will be One.

Toni

Re: conservatism

>

>

> Dear ,

> Forgot this in my drafts folder.

>

> N: Thanks, Toni. I appreciate it. Now lemme see is I can 'parse' (If I

> understand how that term is used . . .)

>

> I just wanted to say that there is another more common meaning for " born

> again " .

>

> N: You really feel this is more 'common'? Maybe I've lived in the South

> too

> long. (Shoot. I Know I've lived in the South too long ;-)

>

> It actually has nothing to do with one's morality, or 'walking in his

> footsteps "

>

> It is actually a pronounced experience of what the person calls G-d " It is

> something that convinces the individual that a Supreme being actually

> exists, and no longer has to be taken on faith.Jung says one knows.

>

> N: And down here people take that to mean that he's convinced God (not to

> offend but I don't share you tradition nor consider it a mark of

> disrespect

> to follow my own.) exists 'as they conceive of 'Him''>

>

> Its result is a metanoia, true. One changes direction. But one is already

> a

> religious person. This doesn't happen off the street. Even was

> already

> religious when he fell off his horse.

>

> N: Yes. That example comes up a lot. My own experience has been somewhat

> different (and yet the same in some respects). My feeling is that all my

> life intuitively I knew the Self existed, but it wasn't until I discovered

> Jung I had any validation for this intuition.

>

> This experience doesn't make a person " good " . It makes him a spiritual

> seeker.

>

> N: Do you mean as in individuation s/he seeks her/his own wholeness?

>

> His character doesn't change from one minute to the next. True once

> in the presence of G-d, we see ourselves as we really are and judge

> ourselves.

>

> N: Hummm . . . in my case I'd have said I ceased to judge myself but

> perhaps

> to sort my actions and impulses into those I want to actualize - or not.

>

> But, because he is now finally completely convinced by his

> experience he finds himself a " different person " and tries to become what

> he

> already feels. Sometimes this change is for life. Jung felt it was for

> him.

>

> N: I'm tired not of 'judging' Jung so had best not comment on that. I

> interpret what you say there as reaching a point of sustaining the tension

> of the opposite and find that I (and others as I observe them) sort of

> 'come

> and go' in this ability.

>

> Sometimes one's memory forgets and one returns to an everyday ordinary

> member of the faith. No longer does one know...one has forgotten and must

> once again believe.

>

> N: Since I have never had that sort of 'religion' I don't know. I'd say

> one

> may swing along a triangular path: knowing > not knowing > being annoy

> with

> dogmatist wherever they are found. (The last in an effort to regain the

> position of sustaining the tension of the opposites.)

> I take the rest to be what you have experience, but somewhat different

> from my own.

> On a haiku list we are how discussing the 'haiku spirit'. One seems to

> be saying it's the same as Zen. I'm asking is Zen is maintaining the

> tension of opposites and if so why not come out and say so. I found a

> site

> with a paper claiming that Zen and Jung say different things. Zen

> maintaining one must obliterate the Ego. I'm not yet convinced they are

> actually saying different things. Seems to me that archetypal experience

> is

> likely to be more similar than that . . . I understand Jung to say that

> one

> turns from total reliance on the Ego to put more reliance on the Self. I

> guess at this point I'd say that one give up the narcissistic Ego and the

> Ego itself transforms into (as Alice sometimes says) a verb. Another way

> to

> say the latter might be that the Ego becomes more permiable functioning as

> a

> mediator between the Unc. and the outer collective.

>

> Just where I'm at right now. Thanks for bringing it up. It's always

> helpful when someone provides an opportunity to put somewhat nebulous

> thoughts in words with the hope of their communicating something concrete

> to

> another mind.

>

> Blessings,

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni, all,

Re: conservatism

>

>

> Dear ,

> Forgot this in my drafts folder.

>

> N: Thanks, Toni. I appreciate it. Now lemme see is I can 'parse' (If I

> understand how that term is used . . .)

>

> I just wanted to say that there is another more common meaning for " born

> again " .

>

> N: You really feel this is more 'common'? Maybe I've lived in the South

> too

> long. (Shoot. I Know I've lived in the South too long ;-)

>

> It actually has nothing to do with one's morality, or 'walking in his

> footsteps "

>

> It is actually a pronounced experience of what the person calls G-d " It is

> something that convinces the individual that a Supreme being actually

> exists, and no longer has to be taken on faith.Jung says one knows.

>

> N: And down here people take that to mean that he's convinced God (not to

> offend but I don't share you tradition nor consider it a mark of

> disrespect

> to follow my own.) exists 'as they conceive of 'Him''>

>

> Its result is a metanoia, true. One changes direction. But one is already

> a

> religious person. This doesn't happen off the street. Even was

> already

> religious when he fell off his horse.

>

> N: Yes. That example comes up a lot. My own experience has been somewhat

> different (and yet the same in some respects). My feeling is that all my

> life intuitively I knew the Self existed, but it wasn't until I discovered

> Jung I had any validation for this intuition.

>

> This experience doesn't make a person " good " . It makes him a spiritual

> seeker.

>

> N: Do you mean as in individuation s/he seeks her/his own wholeness?

>

> His character doesn't change from one minute to the next. True once

> in the presence of G-d, we see ourselves as we really are and judge

> ourselves.

>

> N: Hummm . . . in my case I'd have said I ceased to judge myself but

> perhaps

> to sort my actions and impulses into those I want to actualize - or not.

>

> But, because he is now finally completely convinced by his

> experience he finds himself a " different person " and tries to become what

> he

> already feels. Sometimes this change is for life. Jung felt it was for

> him.

>

> N: I'm tired not of 'judging' Jung so had best not comment on that. I

> interpret what you say there as reaching a point of sustaining the tension

> of the opposite and find that I (and others as I observe them) sort of

> 'come

> and go' in this ability.

>

> Sometimes one's memory forgets and one returns to an everyday ordinary

> member of the faith. No longer does one know...one has forgotten and must

> once again believe.

>

> N: Since I have never had that sort of 'religion' I don't know. I'd say

> one

> may swing along a triangular path: knowing > not knowing > being annoy

> with

> dogmatist wherever they are found. (The last in an effort to regain the

> position of sustaining the tension of the opposites.)

> I take the rest to be what you have experience, but somewhat different

> from my own.

> On a haiku list we are how discussing the 'haiku spirit'. One seems to

> be saying it's the same as Zen. I'm asking is Zen is maintaining the

> tension of opposites and if so why not come out and say so. I found a

> site

> with a paper claiming that Zen and Jung say different things. Zen

> maintaining one must obliterate the Ego. I'm not yet convinced they are

> actually saying different things. Seems to me that archetypal experience

> is

> likely to be more similar than that . . . I understand Jung to say that

> one

> turns from total reliance on the Ego to put more reliance on the Self. I

> guess at this point I'd say that one give up the narcissistic Ego and the

> Ego itself transforms into (as Alice sometimes says) a verb. Another way

> to

> say the latter might be that the Ego becomes more permiable functioning as

> a

> mediator between the Unc. and the outer collective.

>

> Just where I'm at right now. Thanks for bringing it up. It's always

> helpful when someone provides an opportunity to put somewhat nebulous

> thoughts in words with the hope of their communicating something concrete

> to

> another mind.

>

> Blessings,

" Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings

may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering. "

H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

You asked:

" N: So Toni (and others) is the born again experience among Charismatics

alway Christ centered in the traditional way? Just drawing Jesus from the

canonical gospels I don't alway find him all that loveable. (Heresy!!!)

The born again experience is first of all, from everything I have observed,

read,felt,taught,witnesses, done, is first of all to remember how small one

must be to be born at all.

The main idea, is a metanoia which admits that we got a little lost along

the way in life, and need to try again. Then we come to the understanding

that nothing will ever change unless we approach life ( G-d) differently.

The main focus is on " surrender " , and that is why so many people are turned

off before they even know how that is meant.

Surrender means we accept what is.It means Surrender is a yielding to

" rather than opposing the flow of life. " It is a purely inner phenomenon. It

does not mean we cannot take action and change the situation. But one has to

accept the NOW. One doesn't judge the now, there is therefore no resistance,

no emotional negativity, because one accepts the " issness " of this moment.

So far I haven't mentioned Jesus or G-d. For Christians , when they

surrender, they imagine surrendering to Someone. Non believers surrender

only to the now., in its issness.

Since Christians say " Thy will be done " , surrender means surrendering one's

will to the will of G-d as we see it. Jews also understand humility. So to

many fervent Christians, " born again " reminds them of Jesus talk with

Nicodemus on the subject.

In baptism as practiced in the N.T. it is a washing away of sin. But then

what? We invented Confirmation for 12 year olds. But committed sin is only a

small part of the problem. It is how we go on from here. Non surrender

hardens the ego and gives one even a stronger sense of separateness.( the

" unconscious " compulsion to destroy others through judgment, and the need

to dominate and compete, remain.

In surrender, and many do it daily, the pattern of resistance is done away

with. We can then experience the flow of life by accepting the present

moment unconditionally. Or by giving to one's G-d, the vow to submit one's

will to His will. (same thing in the long run). WE relinquish the " my way or

the highway " notion and all inner resistance to what is. That resistance is

unconscious, by the way.

So whether one is a believer or not, A Christian or not, being born again is

a catch phrase for acceptance of what is NOW. It is not an attitude of " I

don't care anymore " or " I can't be bothered " Wise men say that until one

practices surrender, the spiritual dimension is just something you read

about, talk about, get excited about and maybe even believe in...but nothing

changes.

Many people believe that it is through surrender that spiritual energy comes

into the world.

So it depends what one means by " baptism in the spirit " being " born again " .

In Christian circles one surrenders oneself to Christ. One is " born again "

in Christ. To others it is a matter of facing reality without resistance

which only gives us negativity.

Spiritual enlightenment means living in the now, and accepting that what is

IS.

(And remember surrendering is perfectly compatible with taking action,

achieving goals. But the point of access is the now, and accepting what is)

So when Protestants walk down the aisle to admit to being saved, by being

born again, they know Jesus to be their Savior and they intend to do the

will of his father, and giving, surrendering their own. But, it does no good

at all, unless daily they are willing to surrender again...unfortunately so

often that part is ignored.

Charismatics also hope to be given the " gifts of the Spirit " given to the

apostles on Pentecost. Those gifts are for one personal spiritual path as

well as to benefit the believing community. Surrender, total surrender is

the gift we give.

Acceptance and surrender is the wisdom of a fulfilled life.

Toni

AS for not finding Jesus all that lovable, that makes sense if one sees him

as the Jewish peasant/Rabbi of 2000 years ago, literally.

There is always the " historical Jesus " or the " Cosmic Christ " of St

In my mind one reads the Scriptures either with the eye of faith, or as

literature. That will also make a difference on how one sees the main

Character.

You also mentioned that one doesn't know if G-d forgives, and sees no

blemishes. Those who say that know it because they have experienced it. Of

course we do not " know " G-d, or the G-dhead, I sure don't, but I do know

what I hear and feel inside myself. That still small voice still speaks, and

Scripture enforces that belief someplace and not others. Doesn't that depend

on our own Image of the Image of G-d?

Toni

Re: conservatism

>

>

> Dear ,

>

> You know what? Take a lot of the terms away and you and I are on the same

> page, going in the same direction but we speak different dialects to

> understand ourselves and the world.

>

> N: I've supected that for a very long time. I belief that's important for

> each of us to put all the wisdom we find into our own word. Thus we

> internalize rather than just parreting.

>

> Yes, I know the South, and its often mangled meaning which unfortunately

> often turns into self-righteousness, because i was always on the other end

> of whatever message was to be received.( Some went so far as to tell me, I

> couldn't be what I thought I was then, and that was accompanied by a sneer

> at Catholicism which does not mention " born again "

>

> N: I hear That ;-) And often feel it though no one yet has come right out

> and told me I'm the goat among the sheep. I don' t see any Jungians as

> much

> wanting to be sheep (smile)

>

> No, I took my meaning from better sources, and that is also how I taught

> it,

> since the Charismatic Renewal believes one " gets " the gifts of the Spirit

> only after an experience called by others " born again " ( It changed my

> life,

> my actions and sadly I lost my equilibrium. But that wasn't the fault of

> the

> experience but how I allowed it to change my always terrible problem with

> spiritual pride.)

> N: So Toni (and others) is the born again experience among Charismatics

> alway Christ centered in the traditional way? Just drawing Jesus from

> the

> canonical gospels I don't alway find him all that loveable. (Heresy!!!)

>

> Actually the meaning which is now used in so many books takes its name

> from

> Scripture, but no one reads the rest of the passage.

SNIP

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni, Below you tie together two concepts as I've never seen them before. It makes a certain sense I'll grant, but I wonder how many of the Christians who use the term 'born again' have ever thought of it as not tied to Christ or perhaps baptism.

I can certainly agree with you about surrender. Not so sure about how one reads the gospels. Seems to me that to read them while ignoring the 'nuances' such as "Woman, the time is not yet" is really not to read them at all as they come to us in the canon. Either that or to allow oneself to be split. A reason for me to prefer some of the Gnostic texts.

Blessings,

Re: conservatism>>> Dear ,>> You know what? Take a lot of the terms away and you and I are on the same> page, going in the same direction but we speak different dialects to> understand ourselves and the world.>> N: I've supected that for a very long time. I belief that's important for> each of us to put all the wisdom we find into our own word. Thus we> internalize rather than just parreting.>> Yes, I know the South, and its often mangled meaning which unfortunately> often turns into self-righteousness, because i was always on the other end> of whatever message was to be received.( Some went so far as to tell me, I> couldn't be what I thought I was then, and that was accompanied by a sneer> at Catholicism which does not mention "born again">> N: I hear That ;-) And often feel it though no one yet has come right out> and told me I'm the goat among the sheep. I don' t see any Jungians as > much> wanting to be sheep (smile)>> No, I took my meaning from better sources, and that is also how I taught > it,> since the Charismatic Renewal believes one "gets" the gifts of the Spirit> only after an experience called by others "born again" ( It changed my > life,> my actions and sadly I lost my equilibrium. But that wasn't the fault of > the> experience but how I allowed it to change my always terrible problem with> spiritual pride.)> N: So Toni (and others) is the born again experience among Charismatics> alway Christ centered in the traditional way? Just drawing Jesus from > the> canonical gospels I don't alway find him all that loveable. (Heresy!!!)>> Actually the meaning which is now used in so many books takes its name > from> Scripture, but no one reads the rest of the passage.SNIP

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

I skipped a few steps.

The Christians you speak of, will not say they accept "What Is"...they will say they accept Christ. Says the same thing to me. To me All that IS , "What is" is another name for that Source of All many call Christ (who is One with his Father) Most of those people still think in a dualistic way, so they surrender to Someone or Something. The need an object...Christ or G-d or Allah to their subject. Some people actually surrender to the Now, with no name, no object necessary. It is a yielding of oneself.

As for reading the Gospel. Shouldn't one know what exactly Christ said, if anything, before one accepts it as the word of G-d? The cannon was put together by a group of men serving an organization wanting power. Is it possible and probably that words 300-400 years later changed meaning, or were chosen for a slightly different meaning? Scripture has been translated for so many times, always with a person who has a personal point of view. The nuances are exactly what the bishops were truing to insert to ward off what they considered heretics ( of which there were many)

For myself that wasn't good enough and I decided to make a lifetime goal of studying Scripture. I certainly will never have a definitive answer...no one walked around with a tape recorder or a steno pad. And it was 100 years before anyone decided to write down what they themselves had not actually heard.

The Holy Spirit will, in my belief, give the correct reading if we so wish. A heartily believe that we must establish a relationship to Spirit before we open the Book. There are hundreds of interpretations for every word. How will we know which one is closest to the truth? I always expect the Holy Spirit to burn the passage in my heart, or I let it be until he does. I have a lot more faith in Spirit than in a bunch of bishops with an ax to grind.

Toni

Original Message -----

From: nancy smith

To: JUNG-FIRE

Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 3:21 PM

Subject: Re: conservatism

Dear Toni, Below you tie together two concepts as I've never seen them before. It makes a certain sense I'll grant, but I wonder how many of the Christians who use the term 'born again' have ever thought of it as not tied to Christ or perhaps baptism.

I can certainly agree with you about surrender. Not so sure about how one reads the gospels. Seems to me that to read them while ignoring the 'nuances' such as "Woman, the time is not yet" is really not to read them at all as they come to us in the canon. Either that or to allow oneself to be split. A reason for me to prefer some of the Gnostic texts.

Blessings,

[Guest guest]

I can't think of a thing to object to your clear description below, Toni. It seems I'm being narrow-minded about the narrow minded. Some analyst (furgit just who) writes about Self speaking to Self. I guess what happens to the Pharisees is that they commit Selficide and in so doing no longer believe in a 'living god'.

We're currently doing a segment at our church on the value of ritual. Difficult for me in the repetition of 'same old, same old.' To project a bit one might think that God might become bored and feel that practices weren't putting in their whole hearts and minds.

I expect you're familiar with the Jesus Seminar and their attempt to sort what 'Jesus really said'. Our Bible Study moderator judges their effort 'ridiculous'. To me they seem quite interesting if only in setting the musty old bishops' canon dogma aside. Why isn't deeming a book infallible considered 'idol worship'?

Blessings,

Re: conservatism

Dear Toni, Below you tie together two concepts as I've never seen them before. It makes a certain sense I'll grant, but I wonder how many of the Christians who use the term 'born again' have ever thought of it as not tied to Christ or perhaps baptism.

I can certainly agree with you about surrender. Not so sure about how one reads the gospels. Seems to me that to read them while ignoring the 'nuances' such as "Woman, the time is not yet" is really not to read them at all as they come to us in the canon. Either that or to allow oneself to be split. A reason for me to prefer some of the Gnostic texts.

Blessings,

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Besides the Jesus Seminar, there are literal hundreds of new works on translation problems, deliberate omissions, and just plain mistakes. I doubt your moderator is up on all the latest studies, but even a dilettante in this field knows that what Jesus was supposed to have said, probably were someone else's understanding of what he said, then handed down, orally or in letters.. None of the writings are by someone who actually hear Jesus...including the "beloved disciple" ( I have read that the only actual word traced back to Jesus was "Abba"...in the whole New Testament.You will note that those who wrote the most, like , only met Jesus in a vision, and the others all of the others had a point to make and a particular slant to put on what they said were the words of Jesus. All we can do, 2000 year later is hope in the Holy Spirit that most of what is written isn't too far off. Yet we know it must be, because we forget to take the civilization in which Jesus lived into account.

We know more about the obvious omissions( mostly the bishops so afraid of losing their power) now that the Nag Hamandi scrolls have been worked on.There are "strict" doctrinaire believers in all faiths, I guess.It is fear that makes one hang on to "being sure"" being told"...people want that certainty..

To me "an infallible" book is nonsense, and yes, it would be an idol.

I think ritual has true value. It isn't to the thinking part of of our psyche, though, but the symbols used become "holy" in their continued uses since the beginning. I love Jung's understanding of the Mass.

Our hearts need to be engaged for true worship, in my opinion, and ritual will mean to each person exactly what he/she puts into it. It used to mean a lot more to the average Mass attendee or service attendee, because each minute part was understood as having a special meaning hallowed by grace and time.

We have rituals in families which bind us closer together, and make us feel part of "something" special. My family did and I insisted on bringing our kids up with as many as I could find. Now my kids are doing the same....their mates find it strange, but then many families were not as close as ours. There is comfort in doing the same thing each time to commemorate something special...birthdays, Holydays, anniversaries, mealtime was a big one for us.

When I enter A Roman or Anglican Catholic Church, I am assured by the sanctuary light that the Host is reserved...or to say it another way, that Jesus is present in a special way. There is to me a different atmosphere in those churches. I have also found that to be true in some synagogues not Jesus of course, but it being hallowed ground...and the way the Torah is handled...just like the Bible brought forward for the reading of the Gospel.

Going to the old churches of Europe is much more than a trip to a museum for me. I feel it the minute I enter. I usually feel so sorry to the few worshippers there when the tourists come through. The history just has a different quality, the age...and then of course, the wonderful Gothic arches in so many..they take the soul right up to heaven when one sees them. And the tradition of the masons and artists who labored so long for sheer love of G-d. And the windows!!

Anyway, I love ritual as you can see. I always note that how I feel as I enter will be the way I feel about the ritual. Most times great. Sometimes too sleepy or distracted, or too mad about the sermon...then the ritual doesn't mean much to me.

I have a great picture of G-d being bored, but worship is because we need to do it, not because G-d needs us to worship Him. Like prayer we turn it backwards, as if we were doing Him a favor. It is supposed to come from the overflowing of our hearts which we cannot help, not a grudging hour spent badly bored with it all in a pew. Our theology needs work as does our education. Its a wonder anyone ever believes or practices their religion. " Out of the abundance of the heart is where loving service to G-d is supposed to come from...But then it would be a vibrant spiritual experience instead of a dull duty.

Tell your moderator its time he studied Scripture studies that are up to date. Then he won't give you all wrong information...or the "party line". We used to call that "the school solution" in the Marines. That was the answer we had to give, not what might actually be thought out and correct...all they wanted was the school solution. Reminds me of the Church. You and he might enjoy reading how the canon was actually put in place. it came to near mayhem in some of the meetings of the bishops, and politics was the word of the day, and fear of the heretics. It wasn't exactly scholarly work or decisions, you know.

Aren't you glad I am not in your Bible study group?

love,

Toni

Re: conservatism

Dear Toni, Below you tie together two concepts as I've never seen them before. It makes a certain sense I'll grant, but I wonder how many of the Christians who use the term 'born again' have ever thought of it as not tied to Christ or perhaps baptism.

I can certainly agree with you about surrender. Not so sure about how one reads the gospels. Seems to me that to read them while ignoring the 'nuances' such as "Woman, the time is not yet" is really not to read them at all as they come to us in the canon. Either that or to allow oneself to be split. A reason for me to prefer some of the Gnostic texts.

Blessings,