Declaring Freedom, Choosing Oppression

At this time every year, Americans celebrate our freedom from tyranny and oppression. What irony. We decry others’ extremist behaviors; but we can’t see how, in our individual interactions, we are also tyrants and oppressors.

We wonder how those whom we’ve labeled “terrorists” can claim that their actions honor God. But aren’t we doing the same? At every opportunity—at least once weekly, sometimes daily on Facebook or Twitter—we oppress and terrorize others, typically in forceful, angry and condescending tones. We are “saved” from God’s wrath, and they are not. They must do, say and believe what we want them to believe. Or else.

Terrorism, tyranny and religion thrive on threats of extreme punishment (satanic torture that lasts for an eternity) and extreme reward (eternal bliss with vestal virgins). Both rely on the premise that God solves problems through punishments that exceed any human crime: He sadistically hurts or destroys all or part of His creation through genocidal floods, filicide (feel free to consult an online dictionary), torture, natural disasters, plagues and curses. Fascinating stuff. It gives new definition to the word “divine.”

We kid ourselves when we claim to love a God who not only lacks compassion, but is extremely brutal to others in our human family. How do we react to such a sadistic God? Actually, our options are limited. We can:

  1. Emulate this brutal behavior and call it “holy;”
  2. Spread panic by warning everyone within earshot that God is going to heinously brutalize them forever unless they believe that He has heinously brutalized others;

In the case of those who call themselves Christians, there are other options: We can realize that God is not bi-polar. Love is not vengeful or inhumane. If God is Love, God does not do things that Love does not do.

We also can carefully read the accounts of ancient scribes. Retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong says that anyone who believes that everything in the Bible is true, simply hasn’t read it. Most quote the text that proves their point and discard text that contradicts it:

  • God could be in only one place at a time—in or out of the Garden of Eden—meaning that God is not omnipresent;
  • God didn’t know where Adam and Eve were when He returned to the Garden—meaning that God is not omniscient;
  • God gave some of His power to Satan—meaning that God is not omnipotent;
  • The number of animals who entered the ark, the number of days it rained, and the length of the stay on the ark constantly changed, sometimes in the same verse;
  • Jesus was born in a barn and in his parents’ home;
  • God is everywhere, but there’s only one path to get there—and other inconsistencies.

Let’s declare our independence from oppression and oppressing. Let’s unshackle ourselves from beliefs that denigrate God as an angry, vengeful and sadistic tyrant. Let’s celebrate our freedom to relax in the embrace of a God who loves us unconditionally—no matter what we believe.

Father Everyday

The first Tweet I spotted in this morning’s time line was: “The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.” It was a Marcel Proust quote shared by @LouKavar. It made me think: In a world where an increasing number of us are declaring ourselves “spiritual, not religious,” aren’t we really describing the eyes through which we see the eternal God, our Father?

In a thought-provoking Huffington Post blog this week, columnist Jay Michaelson reflected on “A Better Way to Believe in God.” Among other things, he looked at religionists’ insistence upon believing scriptures that clearly reflect the limited knowledge of the ancient scribes, discarding empirical evidence proving these declarations inaccurate:

“Here in America, hundreds of millions of people believe in Intelligent Design, in life beginning at conception, and in a notion of a retributive God. Why? Not because of science, truthseeking, or logical inquiry. They “believe in” these things (notice the locution) because they think religion is at the core of their lives.”

By contrast, the “new eyes” of spirituality see a God that is more accessible, more responsive, more loving, compassionate and forgiving. Our Father is someone whom we invite and delight in having as a companion and active participant in our daily lives, decisions and actions.

“New eyes” can’t envision God as a male being who lives beyond the stars, visits Earth only to destroy every living thing, and hasn’t told all of His kids how to return home. No, “new eyes” have captured Jesus’s vision of God as a Father who provides His prodigal kids a safe, reliable and embracing place to turn when we need guidance, shelter, or have made mistakes. And there’s a feast and new clothes, to boot!

This is not the God we met in church: the God whose brutally torturous and deadly punishments consistently exceed all crimes—the “smack-down God,” as the Rev. Gaylon McDowell aptly characterizes Him—a Father whose behavior is frequently more human, and sadly, more inhumane than divine.

Perhaps we are increasingly seeing God with “new eyes” because while religion has encouraged us to build a personal relationship with threatening and fearsome God who uses deadly force, spirituality has helped us to build a stronger relationship that was, is, and always will be based on unconditional love. With unconditional love comes freedom—the freedom to choose how we see each other, how we see ourselves, and how we see our Father.

For those with “new eyes,” no one is outside of the Father’s Love. Every house is Father’s House. And every day is Father’s Day.

Love as real as an avatar

Part Three of a three-part series

I apologize for the extended pause. Now, back to our other-worldly love story…

I recently stumbled upon a really cool nail salon in Chicago’s South Loop—a yummy combination of great price ($35 mani-pedi) and elegant decor. And the pièce de résistance: “Sex and the City” DVDs play non-stop. Take your time with those nails, please!

Yesterday’s encore episode was about judgment—more accurately, about being judgmental. It reminded me that practically every human being on Earth judges others, and it’s always based on superficial stuff: looks, job, bank account, race, religion, sexual orientation, whatever we decide is important.

Judging others is one of our favorite sports, and Ego is our defensive coach. No chump, Ego is as resilient and relentless as its invincible cousin, the roach, and apparently as ubiquitous. Wherever it goes, judgment tags along. The pair has been spotted as far away as the fictitious planet Pandora, a gaseous moon inhabited by the Na’vi, a peculiar looking breed of humanoids. (But who’s judging?)

Even on Pandora, eyes can be deceiving. Ask Neytiri, a young Na’vi maiden from the Omaticaya tribe, who spotted someone in the lush forest. He appeared to be a kinsmen: Between 9′ and 12′ tall? Check. Blue-striped? Check. Jaundiced-eyed? Uh huh. From the Omaticaya tribe? Not so much.

Actually, he was an American named Jake Sully, an imposter, an avatar cloned to look like a tribesman. Instantly, Neytiri drew her bow and arrow, aimed, and prepared to shoot.

How many of us can relate to that? Who hasn’t hurled verbal or visual arrows at perceived enemies, hoping to pierce their hearts, shatter their egos and knock them to their knees (ideally, at our feet)? When we’ve gone that far, it ain’t easy to back off. And something seemed to be telling Neytiri to do just that.

Woodsprite dances on Neytiri's bow

Neytiri aims

She struggled as we do when our intuition tells us that we’re making a big mistake, and our ego is screaming, “Destroy!” Neytiri aimed again.

Suddenly, a Woodsprite—a seed from the revered Tree of Souls—landed on her arrow, then another and another. Puzzled, Neytiri paused. The wispy jellyfish-like Woodsprites then floated onto her target, the American interloper. She eased her grip on the bow. What was going on? She wondered.

By dispatching the Woodsprites, the Omaticaya’s Divine Spirit, known as “Eywa,” was sending Neytiri not only a powerful signal, but clear direction: Inside the avatar beats a heart that is pure.

On Pandora, a pure heart is revered. The body in which is beats—even if it is flawed—is precious. Neytiri backed off.

Unlike the Omaticaya, we don’t always receive visible clues when the Divine communicates with us. We typically have to listen for a still small voice that’s deep inside. Complicating matters, our egos insist that we should dig in our heels rather than admit that we have misjudged.

In this case, Neytiri decided to accept direction from the Divine, a decision that not only altered her life, but all life on Pandora. It was no mistake that Jake had been sent to Pandora instead of his twin brother. The eternal soul within Jake’s manufactured avatar and physical body had a destiny: Save Pandora from the American invaders. It had been his soul’s purpose since The Beginning.

Forced to spend more time together, Neytiri’s judgment of Jake, and his of her, gradually transformed into “namaste,” a Sanskrit word that means, “The God in me sees the God in you.” When they proclaimed to each other, “I see you,” they weren’t referring to visual sight. Physical eyes judge and separate. Real sight is magical: it sees the heart, the divinity, the true beauty and perfection of another.

Only those who understand that they are spirit—made in the image of God and having a temporary physical experience—can see the beauty and divinity within themselves. These are the only souls who are fearless enough and feel worthy enough to give and receive unconditional love—and can graciously release those who can’t.

After all, anyone can say, “I love you.” Few can say, “I see you.”

Eywa: Someone you should know

Part Two of a three-part series

Sitting here in the balcony, playing with the “Real 3D” glasses I received when I entered the movie theater to see “Avatar,” I am reminded again that each of us looks at Life through different lenses. Some lenses help us see things more brilliantly; others completely block the light.

My first reminder came earlier this week, when I discussed the movie with two friends. What did they think about it? I wondered.

One purred that “Avatar” was a beautiful love story: a man was willing to live the rest of his life on a distant moon, light years away from Earth, wearing a tail and no clothes, so that he could be with the woman he loved. The other friend ranted that the movie glorified the Messiah complex: a brave white man heroically swooped in and saved the black people underneath those blue striped costumes. OMG, was he agitated!

Of course, everyone’s entitled to his or her opinion. The Loud Mouth is no exception: From where I sat, “Avatar” was all about me. OK, ok! It was about you, too—a story about how we treat each other, our planet, and every living thing on it. To me, “Avatar” was about our relationship with the Allness that is God, or as the Na’vi, the blue striped black folk on the distant moon Pandora called it: Eywa.

The Na’vi people were taught that they could tap directly into Eywa and into all life forms because there was only One Source of all life, and everything and everyone was connected—from the most beautiful flower to the most ferocious beast. Of course, the Na’vi had a distinct advantage over us: Eywa was unmistakably present. They could literally see the Divine Source of all Life.

But what if Eywa, their Divine Source, was not visible to the naked eye? What if It vibrated at such a high frequency that It appeared to be invisible, like the individual blades on a fan rotating at high speed? Would they be as reverent and as certain that Eywa existed and that It was a benevolent power that served all, equally?

If the Na’vi couldn’t see Eywa’s full glory, feel Its peace and love, smell Its fragrance, hear Its song, or taste Its nectar, they might easily be convinced that Eywa was, well, anything someone told them It was.

Spinning tall tales has always been a favorite pastime of intelligent beings. Millennia before the advent of the entertainment industry, folks amused themselves by creating and spreading tales. Among the most popular: fantastic stories about gods that no one could see. Typically, these gods lived on top of mountains or beyond the clouds.

These tales fanned wild speculation about what each god looked like and what each of them did. Some reputedly worked for good, others for evil. Feeding on the imaginations of the illiterate naïve masses, these stories took on a life of their own. To this day, many believe them to be true.

Think about it: What if, for generations, the Omaticaya clan of Na’vis had been told that Eywa was a gigantic man who lived on a distant planet called Earth, and knew their every thought and deed? According the legend, Eywa spent all of His time recording the good and bad deeds of each Na’vi humanoid, rewarding good behavior with stuff such as sports victories and wealth, and punishing bad behavior with stuff such natural disasters, poor health and poverty.

What if the Na’vi believed that a wrath-filled Eywa would come to Pandora one day, guns blazing, accompanied by an army of fire-spitting angels? In an instant, He’d annihilate everyone who wasn’t perfect, totally obedient, or hadn’t professed aloud that Eywa was a barbaric bad-ass that should be feared.

You can imagine what would have happened when the gigantic metallic aircraft, bulging with guerilla warriors, noisily descended on the Omaticaya clan of Na’vis that fateful day. Most would have believed that it was Eywa, arriving in fulfillment of the legend. Petrified by His promise of destruction, mesmerized by the sheer size of the space ship, the robot-like “AMP” suits, and armed mercenaries, the Omaticayas would have fled their sacred land and the demonic missionaries from the American military-industrial complex would have carted off all Pandora’s rare and priceless unobtanium minerals.

What saved Pandora from that preemptive attack? Was it really the white guy, Jake Sully, as my friend insists? I don’t think so. Maybe it was Eywa, you say?

Actually, an insightful scene disputes that possibility. More important, it exposed humans’ naïveté about what the Divine is—and what it does. To me, that scene delivered one of the most life altering messages I’ve ever heard. It totally reframed the Divine—and definitively explained why prayers don’t seem to be answered 100% of the time for 100% of the people.

Remember the scene? Jake physically plugged directly into Eywa—into the Divine Itself—and asked for two things: 1) Save the life of Dr. Grace Augustine, who treasured the Omaticaya clan and had been seriously injured by gunfire, and 2) help in defeating the money-grubbing emissaries from the American military-industrial complex were intent upon forcing the Omaticaya clan off of Pandora’s sacred land.

Surely this intercessory prayer would be answered. Jake was asking Eywa to help the good people. The Na’vi had lived harmoniously with each other and with nature for centuries, and Grace Augustine had fought tenaciously to keep the Americans from disturbing that harmony, destroying the balance of nature on Pandora. Besides, Eywa had a vested interest in the preservation of this most sacred land, right? This should have been a slam dunk prayer.

Only humans who believe in God could relate to this scene—humans who, like Jake, believe that the Divine is a being (complete with gender) who can be convinced to do what we want. We act as if God is a wish-granting genie: If we ask “Him” a certain way, perform certain rituals, pay a certain amount of money, and believe with all our hearts that our prayers will be answered affirmatively, we will be blessed. God will grant our wishes.

It doesn’t work that way—on Earth or on Pandora. In this case, Grace the good, died. On Earth, despite our prayers, our loved ones die. We die. Millions of good people die. With every disappointment, we discover that God is not a genie and prayer is not a magic bullet; but we continue to do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. And we encourage others to do the same.

Is there something we should know about God and about prayer that will help us understand them better? Perhaps, in that same scene, Jake’s beloved Neytiri revealed it, as she tried to manage his expectations of the outcome of his request: “Eywa does not take sides,” she explained. “Eywa only balances.”

On this side of the Universe, balance is called reaping and sowing. One rabbi phrased it, “Judge not, lest ye be judged, condemn not, lest ye be condemned…” In Loud Mouth vernacular: “Whatever you do will be done to you”—no more, no less. Balance.

Part one of Jake’s prayer request was not granted. What about the other half? The Na’vi did win the battle. Does that mean that Eywa blessed him or them? No, but it might look that way to those who think that God is a wish granting genie.

I think the Na’vi’s salvation was their awareness and belief that they were connected to every living thing. I think it was their respect for the role that every living thing plays in their eco-system and their ability to literally “hook up” with all the other life forms.

Understanding that they were one, everything—plants, trees, animals, Na’vi humanoids, flying beasts, you name it—worked collectively to ward off the enemy and restore peace, harmony and balance to their corner of the Universe. After their victory, did you notice that the Na’vi didn’t establish prison camps? They didn’t torture the invaders or turn them into prisoners of war.

The Na’vi understood harmony. They understood balance. They understood that the only way to avoid punishment and condemnation is not to punish and condemn. Most important, they understood Eywa—what It is and what It does.

That’s something we all should understand if we are to maintain peace and balance in our own lives. When we ask, in prayer, for everything to be resolved and balanced for the Highest Good of All concerned, we will get precisely what we asked for–EVERY time.

Are YOU an avatar?

By now, practically everyone has seen the blockbuster movie “Avatar.” The special effects, the lush rainforest foliage, the terrifying wildlife and the 3D experience were absolutely spectacular; if you saw the movie in an IMAX theater, even more awesome. But with all that visual stimulation, you might have overlooked the real beauty of this movie: You might not have recognized your own reality, cloaked as cinematic fantasy.

If you’re among those who believe that we are spirits having a physical experience, the symbolism in “Avatar” didn’t escape you. Just as the consciousness of characters Jake Sully and Dr. Grace Augustine shifted out of their human bodies into their avatars when their bodies slept, spiritual masters believe that our consciousness also leaves our physical bodies and enters other dimensions when we sleep. We perceive those other-worldly experiences as “dreams.”

Have you ever vividly remembered the sights and sounds of a dream experience, particularly a frightening, mysterious, exciting or joyful one? What if our dream experiences are just as “real” as our waking experiences?

What if we are avatars? By day, we “live” on planet Earth and by night, in a dimension where we can instantly transport ourselves through time and space by merely thinking? (You have noticed that you have that magical ability in your dreams, right?)

What if the only difference between us and the three avatar drivers on Pandora is that they were fully conscious of who they were, what they were doing and why they were doing it—and we are not? What if, like Jake Sully, our souls entered a tiny human avatar on this planet? Each soul had a specific and distinct mission—rarely as daunting as protecting a people and their way of life from ruthless invaders, but a mission that was significant to our souls’ evolutionary growth?

Unlike Sully, however, because we are not consciously aware of our true identity, we haven’t a clue why we’re here and what we came to accomplish in a finite period of time. That makes the Earth experience tremendously more challenging. Those who volunteer for its Avatar Program are nothing short of remarkable.

Heck, practically any trained warrior—even Jake Sully, who wasn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer—can use his ground combat training to outsmart bad guys and ferocious beasts. But what if Sully had no memory that he had been one of the few, the proud, the Marines?

Picture this: What if Sully’s genetically engineered avatar also came equipped with an ego and five senses that operated on a totally different frequency than his authentic Self, and it had free will to think and do anything it pleased? What if he didn’t have full control of his avatar’s thoughts or movements? With a scenario such as this, could he have survived that first night alone on Pandora?

If you aren’t seeing any parallels yet, let me ask you this: What if, instead of being open to the Na’vi people’s belief that every living thing is spiritually connected and supported, Sully adopted the beliefs and attitudes of his forceful ego and five senses? His ego insists that he is a separate and more superior life form—and that he has dominion over the other life forms. Could an ego-driven Jake Sully have saved Pandora’s indigenous Na’vi civilization and their sacred ground?

This isn’t a test. There is no right or wrong answer to these questions. The important thing is that you look behind the curtain of what we call real life, and examine all the possibilities and unborn potential in the props and characters lurking there.

Be creative! Tell your own story. Envision your physical body as a human avatar. Within it is an eternal life form that is part of and directly connected to the Source of all Life. It holds the answers to all your questions, is fully accessible to you 24/7, is infinitely patient, unconditionally loving, and totally forgiving.

Would your life be different if you initiated and nurtured a relationship with the all-knowing, eternal part of your being? What if you trusted it enough to surrender control of your avatar? Could you do that?

Close your eyes; take in the entire picture. Experience the vivid sights and sounds in “Real” 3D. What did your life look like when you relinquished control to the Source that we call God? How did your body feel? Were you breathing more deeply and feeling more peaceful because you trusted that God would always work out every situation in your best interest? Or were you tense and fearful? Was there a knot in your stomach because you (your ego-self ) was not in control of your body and your life?

Play with it. Have fun discovering more about yourself. I hope you’ll share your discoveries below. (If you want to remain anonymous, simply use initials–yours or someone else’s!)

Valentine, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with you

I was stunned and saddened earlier this week to receive a Facebook invitation to a workshop that proclaimed, “If you do not have money constantly circulating in your life, there is something radically wrong with you.” The invitation was from a minister who practices the teachings of Jesus. 

This young man is an indisputably beautiful person whom I genuinely love, and my intent is not to disparage him in any way. But admittedly, I was so surprised by his declaration that the Loud Mouth within me succumbed to the lure of the empty comment box beneath the invitation in about a nanosecond, immediately questioning the judgmental nature of his marketing message.

Scripture tells us that Jesus believed that absolutely nothing was wrong with the blind beggar. As far as Jesus was concerned, the man, who had been blind since birth, had done nothing wrong and neither had his parents, as presumed by the curious disciples.

“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.” John 9:2-3 (NIV) I could be wrong; but it seems to me that Jesus’s lesson here was that all physical conditions—even those perceived by humans to be negative, disadvantaged or disabling—serve God’s purpose.

Scripturally, God is Love 1 John 4:8 (NIV), and “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.” 1 Cor 13:4-5 (NIV) When I connect those dots, it means that God’s purpose is not to harm us, and every condition benefits us in some way. Of course, this directly contradicts Exodus 20:5, the scripture to which Jesus’s disciples had referred, a scripture that claims that God unfairly punishes children for their parents’ and ancestors’ wrongdoing.

As far as I’m concerned, God is good all the time, and all the time God is good. Holding to that principle, scriptures that portray God as sadistic fall through my strainer and into the disposal; however, I honor others’ right to capture those images of an angry vindictive God in their bowls and cling to them. Similarly, I respect those who believe that material prosperity reflects a heightened level of spiritual consciousness. To me, they’re on different planes, parallel and distinct. 

Investing time and energy in the acquisition of the temporary tangibles of planet Earth distracts us from the real reason we are here. However, I give loving allowance for others to hold a different belief. I’m even open to seeing proof that we can learn the lessons necessary to raise our spiritual consciousness if we’re focused on boosting our cash consciousness.

Just as we have different beliefs, we all have different styles of learning. I generally learn better when I’m paying attention to my teacher, reading the appropriate texts, questioning things that don’t make sense, and doing my homework. For example, I don’t believe that I can learn chemistry by studying English literature. 

When it comes to prosperity and spirituality, I actually learned and evolved more when I was broke. Guess it’s my learning style. When my life was out of my control, I found that I was more motivated to seek Truth. Before then, I was too busy enjoying the big house with the circular drive, luxury cars and in-ground pool to ask the important questions and receive the answers that eventually brought me a more dynamic, enduring level of prosperity and priceless inner peace. In fact, I’m beginning to suspect that it was the inner peace and unconditional trust that whatever I was experiencing was for my Highest Good that attracted more bounty than I ever did through  creative visualizations or 40-day prosperity programs. I’ve tried them, so I know of what I speak.

As Proverbs 4:7 (KJV) says, “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting, get understanding.” It is one of my guiding principals. I trust it as unwaveringly as I trust God’s love. To deeply understand something, we must research; we must ask probing questions, not simply accept other folks’ answers. In this instance, my question was: Is my agitated response to the prosperity workshop invitation due to the minister’s lack of understanding—or my own?

If I’ve learned only one thing in my quest for spiritual truth, it’s that I’m better served by paying less attention to other people’s actions and more attention to my reactions. After all, I will not be held accountable for the way others act, only how I react.

With that in mind, there was only one thing to do: Examine this situation under the loving light of the Christ. I always begin with the premise that all dramas and all actors are playing in my theater for one reason only: to support my spiritual enlightenment. Consequently, I always begin with two questions: Why did I invite this scenario? How does it serve me?

Then I delve into the scenario-specific details. In this case: Does the concept of prosperity workshops annoy me? Truly. Am I disturbed by the idea that something is “radically wrong” with me if I don’t have positive cash flow? No question about it.

The next step takes circles back to the beginning: Why did I invite this scenario, and how does it serve me? Once asked, the answers always come—rarely immediate, but always on time. In this case, it took about a day; but, as usual, it was worth the wait.

I discovered that neither the workshops nor the “something is radically wrong with you” edict was at the heart of my discontent. When Spirit allowed me to sit in the balcony and watching the drama performed under the loving light of the Christ, I was blown away by what was revealed: The message in the invitation mirrored a judgmental, condescending and manipulative aspect of my own ego that I needed to confront and heal. Surprise, surprise, the problem was mine!

I couldn’t have gotten better news. Here’s the deal: I can’t control others’ actions, reactions, thoughts or beliefs; but I can control my own. Once I own the problem, I can shape the outcome. I have the authority and ability to change any aspect of it that I desire.

How empowering, how liberating, how exhilarating! Whoo hoo! Spirit had revealed the lesson and the blessing of the workshop invitation—a very generous gift for which I am eternally grateful.

Now the transformative work can begin: I must accept full responsibility for healing this aspect of my ego self. I must agree to be consciously aware of the lesson learned here because more scenes like it will encore on my stage. I must embrace each scenario as an opportunity to rehearse a more enlightened response, so that one day I can lovingly bring down the curtain on it and all dramas that hold no entertainment value.

The most important lesson I’ve learned through these spiritual epiphanies is that I must remember that I am not simply in the Light, I am the Light. For that, I love myself unconditionally. You are not simply in the Light. You are the Light. For that, I love you unconditionally.

What better day than Valentine’s Day to affirm and stand firm in our love for ourselves? What better day to know that just because money is not lounging in our bank accounts doesn’t meant that it’s not constantly flowing through our lives? There is only One Life and we’re in it.

What better day than this day to remember that no matter what anyone says, there is absolutely nothing wrong with us! Even if we don’t know where our next meal is coming from and can’t pay our rent or mortgage, the radical truth is that there is no spot where God is not. We are worthy of God’s presence. God is with us always–in the urban homeless shelter and the suburban mansion, in the unemployment check and the Wall Street bonus.

God is equally present and equally loving. God doesn’t love one child more or less  than another. No one is highly favored. What you possess is no measure of God’s love. If you want more, simply step onto that glorious path called Self Love. 

Have a divine Valentine’s Day!

Peek-a-Boo!

It’s amazing how long fables live on Earth and in Cyberspace. Five years after I first blogged about this attempt to manipulate (i.e. frighten) the Faithful, it landed in my e-mailbox again. Let me repeat myself…
Maybe you’ve already received this image of the nighttime sky in an e-mail message. If not, take a wild guess at what that eerie looking object in the heavens might be.

Need a hint? Well, according to the originator of the e-mail, this image was captured by NASA. You know the Loud Mouth in the Balcony had a lifetime as a  journalist, so I had to fact-check.  

Lo and behold, it was true! NASA is the image’s source; I think you’ll agree that it’s a highly credible source.  

Now what do you think the e-mail said that NASA called this image? Take a wild guess.  

Uh huh. The Eye of God. Now if we believe that, all we have to do is figure out whether God is winking at us, which explains why we can’t see the other eye, or if “He” (pardon my limiting masculine pronoun) is the mythical one-eyed Cyclops. Oh yeah, and where is God hiding the rest of “His” face and body?  

Obviously, the sleuths at snopes.com had wondered the same thing. This is what they discovered:  

“This is a real photograph of the Helix Nebula, although it’s technically not a single photograph but rather a composite image formed from several photographs taken by NASA’s orbiting Hubble Space Telescope and a land-based telescope at the Kitt Peak National Observatory near Tucson, Arizona.   

“This image was NASA’s “Astronomy Picture of the Day” for 10 May 2003. The tinting of the image is artificial; the Helix Nebula does not naturally appear with the colors shown above. The picture’s ‘Eye of God’ appellation is a title coined by an admirer of the photo due to the nebula’s resemblance to a human eye, not something designated by NASA. The nebula is also visible all the time, not merely ‘once in 3000 years’.”  

 Of course, the e-mail didn’t mention any of these critical details. Instead, it added that un-Christlike Biblical quotation that always accompanies these types of manipulative messages:  

Jesus said, “If you are ashamed of me, I will be ashamed of you before my Father.” (Mark 8:38, Matthew 10:33, Luke 9:26 & 12:9) 

Considering that 1) Luke and Matthew copied most of their text from Mark, 2) none of them knew or heard Jesus personally, 3) they were were quoting him decades after his crucifixion–without the benefit of tape recorders, transcription machines or even shorthand, and 4) these words seem hypocritical, coming from the mouth of a man who believed in forgiving 70 times 7, I’m wondering why its veracity hasn’t been vigorously challenged by those who call themselves Christians. If I remember correctly, Jesus was also quoted as saying, “Condemn not.”  The “I will be ashamed of you before my Father” verse certainly is a condemnation. Would Jesus really say something so un-Christlike? 

Other Bible verses claim that issuing threats of this type was not part of the Prince of Peace’s nature. If people didn’t believe his teachings, Jesus was also quoted as telling his disciples to “wipe the dust” from their feet and keep it moving. He didn’t say, “Stand there and badger, belittle, and threaten the people until they embraced my Truth as theirs!” Instead, he believed that those who have ears would hear. 

Things haven’t changed much. Even today, most are more willing to embrace the concept of “fearing God” than to embrace the emancipating and joyful message that God is Love, God is within, and God forgives 70 times 7. I think we’ve noticed that every verse in the Bible doesn’t agree with the others, as they would if the book was written by one author, rather than the collected works of different authors with different philosophies, different politics, written at different times for different reasons. (Hint: Each chapter is “The Book of ______”)   

Bible scholars value the text for the insight it provides into the thoughts and beliefs of ancient peoples. They not only know that many of the facts are inaccurate, they know that many of the facts, as written, weren’t intended to be accurate. Bible historians also know that the original texts have been transcribed and translated so many times that it’s impossible to know what was really written. And laity logic tells us that if God is timeless, so would be “His” word. It wouldn’t need to be interpreted or updated. Frankly, it reminds me of what a book would look like if the works of Rev. Jerry Falwell, Deepak Chopra, Neile Donald Walsch and the Rev. Billy Graham were represented in one volume, each sharing his own perception of what God is and what God does. Some parts of the book would resonate with some of us; other parts would not. 

And so it is today: We ignore the parts of the Bible we don’t agree with. For example, most of us will not kill our children for being flippant, our spouses for cheating, or strangers for passing our temples, even if the Bible directs us to do so. Others might. In fact, many like to find and focus on the scary words in the Bible, the threatening passages, the manipulative verses that “put the fear of God” in others–as if Love kills, tortures, condemns, judges, is ashamed of us, or will not let us return home.

What most of us think about God is utterly fascinating. That’s why I wasn’t at all surprised to receive another “photo” by e-mail of a teary-eyed God, peering at Earth, with a face almost as big as the planet itself. You’ve seen that one, right? If we are to interpret this photo literally–and if we are to believe that God is human rather than Divine– it would make sense that “He” would be saddened by man’s attempt to distort Jesus’ beautiful lessons into utter meaninglessness. And, I could see where “He” might be even more disturbed to see that man has made God in his physical image, rather than acknowledging that we were created in the image of God. According to scripture, that means we are omnipresent Spirit–like God, not that God has a body, like us.

Luckily, God is so all-knowing that nothing we do surprises or saddens “Him”. God knows us better than we know ourselves, and “He” loves and forgives us, despite our shortcomings, short-sightedness and limited vision of what Omnipresent Loving Spirit looks like and how it perceives its human creation.

 I’m telling ya, that kind of Love will absolutely bring a tear to your eye, no matter how big your head is.

Pat Robertson is the REAL “blessing in disguise”

I’m glad I’m not a gambler. I would have bet my lovely new sofa that some fire-spewing fundamentalist would say that the earthquake in Haiti was caused by an act of the brutal and vindictive God of his particular religion. It never occurred to me that a fire-spewing fundamentalist would blame the devastation on a satanic curse! Ha’ mercy. It appears that absolutely no one but Pat Robertson knew that Haitian leaders had made “a pact with the devil” a couple of centuries ago.

But wait–there’s more: Robertson claimed on his television show that the earthquake could be a “blessing in disguise.” Of course! Now the country has an opportunity to rebuild from scratch, and perhaps rid itself of that ugly curse, he concluded.

I’m sorry, but Robertson is the real blessing here–at least for me. Not only has he so dramatically demonstrated how ludicrous it is for 21st century Earthlings to share the beliefs of ancients who attributed everything to God because they knew nothing of seismology or any of the other sciences that have provided more intelligent explanations. Robertson’s latest unenlightened utterance has inspired so many creative responses that I was spared that task today.

I had just written the first paragraph of this blog post when I received an email from a friend in Los Angeles. It contained a link to a recent opinion column in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. The column included letters from two Earthlings who actually think–something the good Reverend Robertson should try, from time to time, unless he’s acquired a craving for shoe leather.

With that, the Loud Mouth will shut up so that you can enjoy these delightful letters! In case the link above doesn’t work, I’ve pasted the column below. I don’t want you to miss this:

Letter of the day: Haiti suffers, and Robertson sees the hand of Satan

Last update: January 14, 2010 – 6:44 PM

In a small paragraph on page A10 of the Jan. 14 Star Tribune is a report about the remarks made by evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson. Obviously, Robertson believes in creation, not evolution, or he would understand that earthquakes predate the human concept of a curse. Also, Poseidon was considered in mythology to be the god of earthquakes and the sea; therefore, it stands to reason that perhaps he, too, was offended? I hope that Robertson will make a public apology to the people of Haiti for making such a ridiculous statement.

H. BETH LABRECHE, FRIDLEY

•••

Dear Pat Robertson, I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I’m all over that action. But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I’m no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished. Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth — glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven’t you seen “Crossroads”? Or “Damn Yankees”? If I had a thing going with Haiti, there’d be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox — that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it — I’m just saying: Not how I roll. You’re doing great work, Pat, and I don’t want to clip your wings — just, come on, you’re making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That’s working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract. Best, Satan

LILY COYLE, MINNEAPOLIS

News Flash from Nazareth!

The Associated Press reported this week that archaeologists have found the remains of a home in Nazareth, Israel that can be dated back to the era when the New Testament says that Jesus lived. This is a discovery that could provide tremendous insight into the lifestyle of the people who lived in the city at the time that Jesus is believed to have been a child. 

Here’s what we know so far: Nazareth sat on only four acres of land and comprised only 50 homes. According to the Gospels, the Messiah grew up in one of them. For that reason, the timing of this discovery is especially meaningful to Christians. According to Father Jack Karam of the nearby Basilica of the Annunciation—where Christian tradition says an angel told Mary that she would give birth—finding this ancient home during the Christmas season is “a great gift.”

For centuries, theologians have debated whether the man known today as Jesus actually existed. Not only does the Bible contain no firsthand accounts of him or his miraculous acts, they say that his virgin birth, execution and resurrection suspiciously mirror the life narratives of ancient mythical gods. Some say that Jesus might actually have been a metaphor for the Christ spirit within all of us. Others speculate that a traveling rabbi did exist who understood the divinity of man, embraced it, and uplifted others by spreading the word.

Since none of the gospels was written by men who actually knew Jesus or lived during his time, any of these possibilities exist. If someone who was half-human, half-Divine Spirit did walk on the planet, ancient history does teach us that he wasn’t born in December. The Bible doesn’t make that claim and it doesn’t declare that Jesus came to start a new religion.

According to some religious historians, the real reason for the season is that Christian converts, who were accustomed to participating in Jewish or pagan celebrations during the winter solstice, wanted their own holiday during that time of the year. Mythologists also note that December 25 was traditionally the birthday of mythological heroes said to have been the offspring of virgin mothers and pagan gods.

Certain stories and facts are often repeated in the Bible, highlighting the fact that scribes and storytellers liberally borrowed from each other. Remember, this was long before plagiarism laws. Matthew and Luke, for example, copied most of Mark’s book verbatim, but they thought the story was incomplete. Mark hadn’t established Jesus as the Messiah, the only begotten son of God. Matthew and Luke “fixed” that problem by adding birth narratives to Mark’s text. These narratives, written decades after Jesus’ death by men who didn’t know him, intentionally matched Jewish prophesy. Among other things, it was prophesied that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, so both set Jesus’ birth in that city. But that’s where the similarity ended.

The Gospel of Luke claimed that Jesus was born in a Bethlehem barn because there was no room in the inn for his Galilee-bound parents. Matthew’s gospel claimed that Mary and Joseph actually lived in Bethlehem, and Jesus was born at home. As theologians have reminded us throughout the centuries, it really doesn’t matter that Matthew and Luke set Jesus’ birth in two different places. After all, when Constantine the Great gathered religious leaders in Nicea to decide which of the hundreds of known manuscripts should be included in the book they would call the Holy Bible, few of those books—and none of the 27 selected for the New Testament were written as or perceived to be historical documents. But once the Council declared this collection to be the “gospel,” perceptions of their veracity began to shift. Complicate that with the fact that none of the original manuscripts existed when the Council met in 325 A.D., and thousands more copies were re-created by hand and translated (never flawlessly) for another thousand years.

So does it matter whether you believe everything in the Bible is the “word of God”? Not really. Over time, Thinkers have figured out that Jesus couldn’t have been born in two places at once. History has revealed that tax time in that region did not occur during December and that Joseph wouldn’t have been required to travel from Nazareth to Galilee to pay taxes at any time.

Now we learn that Jesus of Nazareth  grew up in a city that was a mere four acres in size, leading us to conclude that if the Messiah went missing, it would not have gone unnoticed and there would have been no 18-year gap in the record of Jesus’ life. There probably would have been a town-wide search party; residents in neighboring towns might have joined in, and the mushrooming posse would have been so unprecedented that one of the few literate citizens would have written about it.

What does it all mean? Many have leaped into the numerous credibility gaps in the Old Testament to declare that there is no God. But what if it only reveals that the ancient storytellers were recording their limited idea of what God is and what God does, and their stories don’t capture the essence of the real God?

Many have leaped into the numerous credibility gaps in the New Testament to declare that there was no Jesus. But what if ancient storytellers were merely creating an allegory about what humans would be able to do if they loved each other unconditionally, treated others the way they’d want to be treated, were aware that their souls were perfect, healthy and complete, and that the spirit of God was within them?

Maybe a man named Yeshua did exist who had this awareness, and lived it daily. Maybe he spent three years of his life teaching others what he knew. Maybe his empowering message enraged the Romans and they murdered him in a most humiliating way, and maybe decades later, writers edified this profound man’s teachings by encasing them within the framework of Jewish prophecy and pagan god myth.

At this point, we know more about what didn’t happen than what did. But do any of those facts mean that we have nothing to celebrate on this Christmas Day? Absolutely not.

Whether we believe Jesus was God, man or myth, we can celebrate the Christ Consciousness that has lived since The Beginning and resides within each of us right now. We can celebrate the birth of a period when Christians were defined by how they behaved rather than by the stories they believed.

Today we can celebrate the opportunity to totally transform our lives by patterning our behavior after that of the indisputably legendary Jesus: We can love unconditionally, bring a healing presence to every room and every relationship that we’re in, judge and condemn nothing, forgive everything, and do nothing to anyone that we wouldn’t want done to us.

It’s called non-religious Christianity, a transformative and powerful way to change our lives and save our souls from the consequences of errant choices and hurtful actions. It makes this day and every day a…

Very Merry Christmas!

The Bible vs. President Obama?

Several times within the past few days, I’ve received emails admonishing me not to buy a bright yellow T-shirt that says: “Pray for Obama, Psalms 109:8.” If you haven’t read that verse, it says: “Let his years be few, and let another take his office.” (KJV)

In the game of politics and political parties, some variant of this prayer is whispered, shouted, and muttered through clenched teeth—without Biblical reference—throughout the four-year term of any President. When a Republican is in office, Democrats pray for another to take his office, and vice versa.

It’s tradition, and it’s no big deal—except in this case, many have decided that the verse on these shirts and bumper stickers is intended to include subsequent verses in that chapter, namely Psalms 109:9-13. These five additional verses, which are referenced nowhere on the shirt, infer that we should pray for God to hurt or kill our enemies—yes, God’s other children. For weeks now, folks have been whipping themselves into a frenzy, concerned that everyone who wears the shirt poses a threat to our President’s safety.

I could be wrong, but it seems that the only real threat here is that there are people who actually believe that God responds affirmatively to mean-spirited vengeful prayer requests. But what else are they to believe, if the Holy Bible is the inerrant and inspired Word of God? That means that every word is true, even if those words characterize God as behaving more like Satan and less like The Divine.

Over the years, I’ve had a number of circuitous discussions with those who believe in the rage-filled, relentlessly unforgiving, kick your kids out, kill-every-living-thing God portrayed in the Old Testament. Typically, they discount these rants by asserting that God changed in the New Testament.

No, it wasn’t that the Jewish rabbi named Yeshua (colloquially known as Jesus) perceived God as more benevolent than the scribes portrayed Him in the Hebrew scriptures. They insist that God actually committed genocide, crammed predators and their prey in the cargo hold of a boat with one window for weeks while bloated human bodies floated all around it, contaminating the water, killing the fish, all the fruit-bearing trees and other vegetation. God did those diabolical inhumane things. But He changed after that, and the New Testament proves it: God decided to forgive all of His children’s sins, on one condition: The Prince of Peace had to be subjected to three days of horrific sadistic torture.

Really? Why did Jesus teach that God was unconditionally forgiving before he was heinously tortured, if it didn’t happen until after his death? And why did God want the Romans to savagely stop the good rabbi from teaching that God was a loving Father? His important message and ministry had lasted only three years. If you have the answers, please free me from my confusion.

What does this confusion have to do with President Obama, a t-shirt and Psalms 109, you ask? Simply, I think it’s helpful to understand the meaning and implications of scripture before deciding whether or not it has the power to harm our President. As any Bible scholar will tell you, we can’t intelligently discuss or react to specific passages in the Bible if we haven’t read the entire book, have no historical context for the writings, the writers or the politics of the time, and have read none of the large body of theological research regarding the collection of works that comprise the Bible.

This reminds me of a link that my friend Rev. Gaylon McDowell shared yesterday on Facebook. The link led me to the YouTube videos from an insightful lecture by New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman. It’s divided into 10 segments because of the time limits on YouTube, but I’d highly recommend watching all of them. Treat yourself to some jaw-dropping “I didn’t know that!” moments.

Dr. Ehrman is the chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which he calls the “buckle” of the Bible Belt. He has written 20 books about the Bible, including New York Times bestsellers Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why and JESUS, INTERRUPTED: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible. Dr. Ehrman teaches historical approaches to early Christianity and the New Testament.

On the first day of class a few years ago, he looked out at the 360 students in his lecture hall and asked three questions:

  1. How many of you would agree with the proposition that the Bible is the inspired word of God? (Voom! The entire roomful of students raised their hands.)
  2. How many of you have read The DaVinci Code? (Voom! The entire roomful of students raised their hands.)
  3. How many of you have read the entire Bible? (There was a hand raised, here and there throughout the lecture hall.)

Ehrman looked at them and said, “I’m not telling you that I think that God wrote the Bible. You’re telling me that you think God wrote the Bible. I can see why you might want to read a book by Dan Brown; but if God wrote a book, wouldn’t you want to see what He had to say?” he laughed.

And that brings us back to Psalms 109:9-13. Did God say or even inspire those destructive words? Do these verses really pose a threat to our President or his family?

I can’t think of a better time to have a discerning heart than when reading or repeating the Bible. If we put our thinking caps on, we would  realize that God wouldn’t give us conflicting directives or portray Himself as bi-polar. For example, an Old Testament scripture about discernment totally contradicts the spirit of Psalms 109: “So God said to him, ‘Since you have asked for this and not for long life or wealth for yourself, nor have asked for the death of your enemies but for discernment in administering justice, I will do what you have asked. I will give you a wise and discerning heart…’” (1 Kings 3:11-12, NIV)

When we are discerning, we can objectively look at a situation, person or written word and determine whether it aligns with what we believe to be true. When we are discerning, we can more appropriately interpret and react to Bible verses.

For example, does God brutally punish humans, as is indicated in so many Bible passages, or is 1 John 4:8 and 4:16 accurate when it states that God is love? It’s impossible for the answer to be “all of the above” unless we believe that God is bi-polar and not absolute. We must make a choice.

Why? Well, according to 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” (NIV)

If God is love, is God angry and vindictive? If God is love, does God brutally punish? If God is love, does God harshly judge? Would love destroy every living thing on the planet? Can we believe the Flood story and believe that God is love? Can we believe the Garden of Eden story and believe that God is love? Which do you believe?

Have you tried the “Would Love do that?” challenge when you read the Bible? It’s my litmus test. When I applied it to the vengeful lyrics in Psalms 109, my answer was a resounding, “No, Love would not do that!” That influenced my response to both the t-shirt and the e-mail.

Between you and me: If we believe that God is Love, we really don’t care whether people buy “Pray for Barack, Psalm 109:8” t-shirts and bumper stickers. We don’t even care if they pray the entire mean-spirited chapter. Why? Because they’re spitting in the wind. We know that Love would never respond affirmatively to prayers asking Him to brutalize any of His children.

Needless to say, I didn’t respond to the urgent call to forward those Psalms 109 t-shirt e-mails. In fact, they immediately went in the trash, right behind the e-mails asking me to pray for President Obama’s protection.

Don’t be alarmed. I have a rationale for that, too: Appeals of this nature presume two things: 1) God is not Love and (2) God has such careless disregard for His child Barack Obama that He will only protect him if we submit a formal request.

I am not going to denigrate God by believing that either of these presumptions is true.