I just heard of a doctrine of insecurity, and now you show so clearly a doctrine of limitedness. A vision that everyone must adhere to is holding back ALL the other possibility that might exist in all those poor confined people.
Thanks.
On second thoughts the pastor’s actually outside the jar church trying to keep the lid firmly screwed down.His salary depends on it.
David
January 3, 2011 | 9:59 am
now THAT would make a great poster/T-shirt
Jan Johnson
January 3, 2011 | 10:03 am
Definitely been a part of that type of church, however, I must say (for me personally) it was more like being whipped into submission of the ‘vision’ every time a toe was out of line rather than being inebriated with with ideas of the church. I asked a lot of questions and was often told to be quiet – mostly because I am a woman. Women are supposed to be quiet in the church! There was a very small minority of those in that church who embraced the vision, but most of us, behind the backs of the leaders, would discuss the impracticality, impossibility and dauntingness (is that a word?)of the vision. I love the cartoon. I hope you don’t think I’m being critical, it just makes me think. Keep up the great work!
“Glad the Divine smashed the bottle to let me escape.”
You put it out there for all to read and comment on, so here goes:
By what criteria did “the Divine” choose you over others? Even more to the point, what makes you more deserving or better than others in the same predicament who will most certainly never escape? Do you not see some issues with this line of reasoning of yours?
I have a difficult time seeing claims of divine intervention in individual’s lives as nothing more than hubris masquerading as humility.
ttm
January 3, 2011 | 11:09 am
Yep. Pick the fresh ones. Make sure they are washed. Plop them into a “salty” environment and screw down the lids. Boil them up. Watch them lose their bright green color and become drab. Then it’s time to open up the jar and chew them up. My former pastors make Vlasic look like amateurs…
Ann Cardon
January 3, 2011 | 12:02 pm
@The Godless Monster
“By what criteria did “the Divine” choose you over others? Even more to the point, what makes you more deserving or better than others in the same predicament who will most certainly never escape?”
The same criteria that makes you compare yourself to those who have claims to Divine intervention and finds them wanting.
The hubris is the same for you, perhaps more subtle but nonetheless deeply assumed. Its called being human.
Whatever smashes the bottle, its a lovely metaphor, a metaphor that you embrace in part, to take apart.
@Ann Cardon,
To be more specific in my criticism of your response:
All you offered is your own twist on “I know you are, but what am I?” or “You’re rubber and I’m glue…”.
Ann Cardon
January 3, 2011 | 12:24 pm
@The Godless Monster
“That’s a nonsense response. Try again”
If it is nonsense to you yet makes sense for me, what is there to try for?
“To be more specific in my criticism of your response:
All you offered is your own twist on “I know you are, but what am I?” or “You’re rubber and I’m glue…”.
No need to further explain as I’m sure the above makes sense to you.
Nancy T
January 3, 2011 | 1:14 pm
@Godless
A bit of bad form to jump in, as I can’t say what meaning Ann intended, however, based on your comment, there was something I wanted to address.
Ann said, ‘Glad the Divine smashed the bottle to let me escape’.
Now, this might seem nit-picky, but unless you’ve already had discussions that define ‘Devine’, it can mean different things to different people… and while she said ‘the Divine smashed the bottle’… that doesn’t necessarily in my mind equate with ‘divine intervention in individual’s lives’ which was your term. I mention, only because my… paradigm (I’m not much on beliefs, in the usual organized religion sense)… includes a ‘Divine’ of my own definition, that equates to something like ‘awe of life, love, and knowing that there is much we don’t know’ (<– sorry, not the easiest thing for me to get into words, hopefully that gets the gist of it) that I don't see as a 'personal other', but, in my paradigm, I see that Divine as being systemic to everything, hence insights from what I learn/experience can be termed as the Divine acting.
Point being, that she used language more open to metaphor/interpretation, and you were the one to equate it with a theological precept, that of 'Divine Intervention'.
Just sayin'
I have a difficult time seeing claims of divine intervention in individual’s lives as nothing more than hubris masquerading as humility.
@Nancy T,
This whole exchange is a perfect example of why critical thinking is so important.
Can you imagine a world in which the definition of every object or point of discussion had to be clarified before moving forward with social intercourse? Commerce, science, politics and even the arts would all come to a complete standstill. What you propose is the equivalent of living in Bizarro Land.
Honestly, Nancy, if anyone in this thread meant “divine” in any other way than what it is commonly understood and defined as, then it is up to those individuals to state up front that they are just making things up as they go along to suit their own agendas or whims.
Ann Cardon
January 3, 2011 | 2:08 pm
@ Godless
“This whole exchange is a perfect example of why critical thinking is so important.”
The hubris in the thought is this, “critical thinking” excludes itself as an object of question. It parades itself as a standard of higher truth, to which it is entitled to berate and demean others with relished distain, ever proud of its attainments.
The flaw is that it doesn’t go far enough, so enamoured with the glitter of its own brightness. How to get the monkey to release the jewel?
Nancy T.
January 3, 2011 | 2:13 pm
@Godless
Actually, critical thinking depends on logic, which by extension includes definitions.
It isn’t a whim, the term “Divine” has been used to mean miraculous, or wonderful. It has been used metaphorically and poetically in ways that do not mean ‘Abrahamic God’, or a personal God.
It has been used by Deists and others to mean a non-personal and non-interventionist ‘god’ (some of those would hesitate to even personify ‘god’ as a distinct ‘being’).
So, in its historic use, ‘Divine’ has meanings that are not made up by people in this thread, let alone to suit ‘agendas or whims’.
By the way, while “Divine Intervention” can be used as a colloquialism, it is more commonly known as a theological concept with specific meaning regarding the ‘Abrahmic God’.
You might want to check the flame-thrower at the door, it isn’t terribly conducive to discussion. Just an idea.
@Ann Cardon,
“The hubris in the thought is this, “critical thinking” excludes itself as an object of question. It parades itself as a standard of higher truth”
Wrong. You couldn’t be more in error. In fact, critical thiking is a process derived from a specific skill set, not a standard. My point is that it is better to be taught HOW to think (critical thinking skills)as opposed to being taught WHAT to think (dogma, woo, superstition, religion, bullshit indoctrination).
Your position is the classic straw-man argument in which a false image of a subject is propped up and then attacked. We can continue this when you demonstrate a basic understanding of the scientific method, logic and critical thinking.
Ann Cardon
January 3, 2011 | 2:19 pm
@Godless
“We can continue this when you demonstrate a basic understanding of the scientific method, logic and critical thinking.”
You’ve made my point quite beautifully.
Nancy T.
January 3, 2011 | 2:22 pm
@Ann
My bad for jumping in, I suppose, but I do feel the need to quibble.
“Critical Thinking” is the same as “Scientific Method” or “Theoretical Physics”… it is merely a tool, it is unable to do anything of itself. It neither parades about, nor can it demean or degrade. If those using it ‘exclude’ it from discussion…they are doing it wrong. And, if they use “Critical Thinking” while also demeaning or degrading someone… then it is a projection to think that one of the tools they are using is responsible for questionable actions.
By the way, neither of you seem to be going to such extremes that ‘hubris’ is particularly descriptive. At most, you both seem to be getting a bit shirty with each other. Maybe deep breaths of oxygen?
Ann Cardon
January 3, 2011 | 2:26 pm
@Nancy T
I agree with what you are saying, which I think is this, no thought, method of thought or descriptions of thought are ever really seperated from the humanity from which it springs.
I try to look behind the concepts at the person’s energy that is expressing the concept. Sometimes a glimpse is caught of what perhaps motivates another to say what they are saying.
@Nancy,
I didn’t properly explain the issue or you didn’t get it. In reviewing my comments, I believe it is the former. Mea culpa…may bad.
To clarify:
The issue is not what is meant by the word “divine”, but the phrase, “divine intervention”.
This implies the action with intent and that (normally) implies a sentient being, n’est-ce pas?
Flamethrower? Hardly. In regards to my demeanor, this is nothing compared to how I treat many fellow atheists on other blogs.
Nancy T.
January 3, 2011 | 2:39 pm
@Ann
Actually, he made my point quite beautifully.
Of course Godless is free to drop out of the conversation any time, the fact that he/she (sorry for presuming male earlier) said, “We can continue this when you demonstrate a basic understanding of the scientific method, logic and critical thinking’” shows a level of impatience and crotchetyness.
@Godless
I hear there is this guy that is a pretty good teacher. Goes by the name of Socrates. You should look him up sometime.
/end of sarcasm, couldn’t resist the humour though. Besides, you’re pretty good bandying about a flamethrower, so I figure my brandishing a Bic in your direction isn’t going to be a big deal.
Unfortunately, I had already had a response typed, and the computer ate it. So, this is the rewrite, and in the meantime Ann has posted.
@Ann, I think I have an idea of what you mean about looking ‘behind the concepts at the person’s energy that is expressing the concept’. The problem is, that while you might get a glimpse of what perhaps motivates them, it is a highly subjective interpretation. That doesn’t make it wrong, just don’t mistake your perceptions as ‘facts’ or ‘truth’ about the other person. We all have impressions of people based on tons of sensory input, sorting through them is the more difficult thing. Everyone’s mileage may vary.
Ann Cardon
January 3, 2011 | 2:42 pm
@NancyT
” think I have an idea of what you mean about looking ‘behind the concepts at the person’s energy that is expressing the concept’. The problem is, that while you might get a glimpse of what perhaps motivates them, it is a highly subjective interpretation. That doesn’t make it wrong, just don’t mistake your perceptions as ‘facts’ or ‘truth’ about the other person. We all have impressions of people based on tons of sensory input, sorting through them is the more difficult thing. Everyone’s mileage may vary.”
Yes…just a glimpse.
Nancy T.
January 3, 2011 | 2:43 pm
@Godless
I retract ‘flamethrower’ in terms of usual Interwebs use.
However, one can modify for the majority audience in the pursuit of discussion. Throwing around things like living in ‘Bizarro Land’ and the disingenous use of ‘Honestly, Nancy’ aren’t really necessary. N’est-ce pas?
@Nancy T,
““We can continue this when you demonstrate a basic understanding of the scientific method, logic and critical thinking’” shows a level of impatience and crotchetyness”
A turd I may be, but being unpleasant doesn’t make my argument any less valid Nancy.
Nancy T.
January 3, 2011 | 2:47 pm
@Ann
I get too wordy.
My point wasn’t the ‘size’ of the insight.. ie ‘just a glimpse’, but rather that the ‘glimpse’ is a perception of the viewer, and does not equate with ‘knowing’ what are the motivations of another person.
You may have understood me the first time around, but I wanted to be clear that it wasn’t the size, but the nature, of the glimpse that I was giving a caution about.
“Throwing around things like living in ‘Bizarro Land’ and the disingenous use of ‘Honestly, Nancy’ aren’t really necessary. N’est-ce pas?”
No, they are not “necessary”, but they do make my point rather colorfully. I stand accused of being uncivil because I refuse to show respect for ideas or concepts that are unsupported by evidence. So be it, guilty as charged.
Nancy T.
January 3, 2011 | 2:57 pm
ROFL!
I don’t recall questioning your validity of that statement, rather that it was needlessly … ‘turdy’…and is somewhat at the root of where Ann ran amiss. It can sometimes be hard not to realize it is the person, not the tool, that is being turdy.
I figured the mention of Socrates might have had the implication… One can teach someone by using logic, to understand what the tool is, and where the problems lie, if one chooses.
As I stated, you’re free to end any discussion you like. I merely wanted to state to Ann that the way you did it has an air of ‘criical thinking’ or ‘logic’ but isn’t really… it is valid, in terms of you not wanting to discuss with her unless she demonstrates those skills to you.
My point, that has nothing to do with logic or critical thinking. It is your choice. And that, in fact, not everyone needs the same skills/skill set to have a conversation. So, your choice shouldn’t be presented quite so depersonalized (use of ‘we’… you could have just said you didn’t want to continue the discussion).
ie, really, I was just mostly trying to send out an implied ‘play nice’… but then again, that is my innner school Ma’am getting up in front of the class.
Nancy T.
January 3, 2011 | 3:05 pm
I don’t think anyone was asking you to respect the ideas. For my part, I was aiming at the difference of disagreeing and respecting the people, regardless of their ideas.
A point made so colourfully that it offends others and they tune you out, isn’t really a point ‘made’, is it? Not that I did that, but that is the risk run when one isn’t careful of the distinction of disagreeing with an idea/belief/etc, and disrespecting the person who holds it. You don’t have to ‘respect’ them either, so to speak. Civil discourse is the general idea.
I am also aware that Ann hasn’t been flame-free. I just figured that the one extolling the use of logic, critical thinking, and the scientific method was the one to look to for ‘civil discourse’… but then again, with the now disclosed ‘turdiness’ acknowledged, I willingly back down and give the floor over to the ‘hey you kids get off my lawn’ guy. (I’m presuming you know the reference, but if not it equals ‘shirty and/or crochety’ for the most part. Then again, I’m getting pretty crochety in my old age, so, glass houses and all that.
Crystal
January 3, 2011 | 3:08 pm
Surely the point of David’s cartoon today is about us (the church) being sucked into a “vision” that leadership pushes onto us? If the jar gets broken everybody in it has the opportunity to escape, don’t they? The truth is that most don’t know that they are supposed to grab that opportunity and run out as fast as they can. Most people like the idea of being controlled by a higher power. It gives them security.Of course, if they are truly “pickled” then they are as good as dead.
David ought to drop in on this conversation and put us all straight. Where are you today, David?…Crysal.
Nancy T.
January 3, 2011 | 3:22 pm
@Crystal…
I love the cartoon. Then again, I love almost all of David’s cartoons (and Artwork in general).
I agree totally, “If the jar gets broken everybody in it has the opportunity to escape, don’t they?”
There was just side discussion as to the ‘agent’ of the jar being broken. The individual, God, cicumstance, etc. etc.
One of the reasons I like David’s comics so much, is that they often can be open to a number of interpretations, or raise a number of ideas. I would be more than happy to have David drop in the on the conversation, but I like letting his work speak for itself. Besides, I think I’m too bent to be put straight. : >
I think that we can also look at ourselves. There is a case to be made that at times, it the congregation, not the leaders, that are doing the pushing. Though, being church politics, the complexity is usually greater, with cartels and agendas and groupings.
@Crystal,
Great observations. Agreed.
“The truth is that most don’t know that they are supposed to grab that opportunity and run out as fast as they can”
That was certainly me about 15 or so years ago…
Crystal
January 3, 2011 | 4:01 pm
Nancy, In the church I was in, some people did put forth some wacky ideas that the leadership thought not worthy of pursuing, so they dealt with them accordingly. In the IC I guess that is the only way to handle things. Hence my exit. The “vision” however was kind of pushed by the leaders. They said that somebody had to make decisions and God had ordained them to the task, so unless the congregants agreed to obey, they either left or kept quiet.
Regarding the comments on this blog today, I just felt that we were debating semantics that took away from the cartoon.
Where is David, anyway? He ought not to have a life outside of this blog Ha Ha! He created this monster so should at all times stick around to monitor it. Just joking, David. This blog is much better than some I’ve been reading. Here, people are generally polite, intelligent, helpful, and patient with our weaknesses for the most part, otherwise I would quit it right now. Most of us are seekers of something outside ourselves, even you, Godless Monster. Am I not correct?…Crystal.
“even you, Godless Monster. Am I not correct?…Crystal.” you betcha…
TERI
January 3, 2011 | 10:40 pm
WOW, difficult to share an experience without a brain stretching clash of verbs and nouns. And this is why I am staying out of the fray.
TERI
January 3, 2011 | 10:41 pm
ps, I do “grok” the pickle analogy. Thanks Naked Pastor!
Crystal
January 3, 2011 | 10:43 pm
Hi Prodigal Prophet,
I’ve spent much of my day reading your story on the Authonomy site. It is so well written. Normally I shy away from testimonial type books written by Christians because they are so often formulaic in design and downright boring. Congratulations.Your experiences so mirror my own although I haven’t been a part of as many churches as you. I believe every word of what you wrote because I have had the visions, the voices, the dreams, the personal encounters with Jesus, and the guidance that you were given, plus some of the awful church stuff, too.
I’m now pursuing the mystical tradition, at long last. If I was in church, I would not be able to. I would be called a heretic, or a liar.
I am interested in how the Authonomy setup works for you. As I have spent the past twelve years writing a book, similar in many ways to yours, although with a different theme running through it, I am looking to get it published. I’ve heard good and bad things about the site, and so far, am still hoping for a regular publisher. My book doesn’t fit the traditional “Christian” genre, and I don’t think yours does either. You don’t have enough king James scripture verses in it for any Christian publisher to be interested in putting it out ( I’ve talked to Christian agents about this, and they are as frustrated as the writers at how boxed in to rigid rules Christian books have to be ) and that is a sad fact about book publishing today. Please give me some feedback on how your book does. It deserves to be out there for readers all over the world.
I am sad for how you and your wife lost your little baby boy. And not at all surprised at the lack of empathy you received from the church you were in at the time. The organization always comes first, and that is terrible.
I urge all on this blog to do what I did and read your beautifully written story. They will never again doubt what the IC is all about. Not to say that there are not good ones out there – luckily there still are some. But, there is something wrong with all that control and money grabbing.
Take care, and will talk to you again…Crystal.
Crystal
January 3, 2011 | 10:53 pm
Hi Prodigal Prophet,
I see you wrote a second book ‘Mystical Musings” so will read that one, too…Crystal.
Thanks for your kind words regarding my book The Prodigal Prophet.By the way one of David’s lovely paintings will be the cover for the paperback. I wrote it for those disillusioned with the Christian game. Something in there just doesn’t square up! I also wrote it for those who’ve experienced trauma in their lives to show that there is a Presence out there that comes to us when we’re at the end of our rope.
Great to hear you’ve written your own book. Have a look at Night Reading a new independent publishing house over here in the UK. They’re publishing my work. All Christian publishing houses turned it down – too much honesty perhaps?
My name is David Hayward, and I am the nakedpastor. I am a graffiti artist on the walls of religion.
I just heard of a doctrine of insecurity, and now you show so clearly a doctrine of limitedness. A vision that everyone must adhere to is holding back ALL the other possibility that might exist in all those poor confined people.
Thanks.
I’ve been in one of those David!
Boy, it was an exhausting experience trying to be ‘me’ in there, jostling for room next to the pastor.
Glad the Divine smashed the bottle to let me escape.
On second thoughts the pastor’s actually outside the jar church trying to keep the lid firmly screwed down.His salary depends on it.
now THAT would make a great poster/T-shirt
Definitely been a part of that type of church, however, I must say (for me personally) it was more like being whipped into submission of the ‘vision’ every time a toe was out of line rather than being inebriated with with ideas of the church. I asked a lot of questions and was often told to be quiet – mostly because I am a woman. Women are supposed to be quiet in the church!
There was a very small minority of those in that church who embraced the vision, but most of us, behind the backs of the leaders, would discuss the impracticality, impossibility and dauntingness (is that a word?)of the vision. I love the cartoon. I hope you don’t think I’m being critical, it just makes me think. Keep up the great work!
@The Prodigal Prophet
“Glad the Divine smashed the bottle to let me escape.”
You put it out there for all to read and comment on, so here goes:
By what criteria did “the Divine” choose you over others? Even more to the point, what makes you more deserving or better than others in the same predicament who will most certainly never escape? Do you not see some issues with this line of reasoning of yours?
I have a difficult time seeing claims of divine intervention in individual’s lives as nothing more than hubris masquerading as humility.
Yep. Pick the fresh ones. Make sure they are washed. Plop them into a “salty” environment and screw down the lids. Boil them up. Watch them lose their bright green color and become drab. Then it’s time to open up the jar and chew them up. My former pastors make Vlasic look like amateurs…
@The Godless Monster
“By what criteria did “the Divine” choose you over others? Even more to the point, what makes you more deserving or better than others in the same predicament who will most certainly never escape?”
The same criteria that makes you compare yourself to those who have claims to Divine intervention and finds them wanting.
The hubris is the same for you, perhaps more subtle but nonetheless deeply assumed. Its called being human.
Whatever smashes the bottle, its a lovely metaphor, a metaphor that you embrace in part, to take apart.
@Ann Cardon,
That’s a nonsense response. Try again.
@Ann Cardon,
To be more specific in my criticism of your response:
All you offered is your own twist on “I know you are, but what am I?” or “You’re rubber and I’m glue…”.
@The Godless Monster
“That’s a nonsense response. Try again”
If it is nonsense to you yet makes sense for me, what is there to try for?
“To be more specific in my criticism of your response:
All you offered is your own twist on “I know you are, but what am I?” or “You’re rubber and I’m glue…”.
No need to further explain as I’m sure the above makes sense to you.
@Godless
A bit of bad form to jump in, as I can’t say what meaning Ann intended, however, based on your comment, there was something I wanted to address.
Ann said, ‘Glad the Divine smashed the bottle to let me escape’.
Now, this might seem nit-picky, but unless you’ve already had discussions that define ‘Devine’, it can mean different things to different people… and while she said ‘the Divine smashed the bottle’… that doesn’t necessarily in my mind equate with ‘divine intervention in individual’s lives’ which was your term. I mention, only because my… paradigm (I’m not much on beliefs, in the usual organized religion sense)… includes a ‘Divine’ of my own definition, that equates to something like ‘awe of life, love, and knowing that there is much we don’t know’ (<– sorry, not the easiest thing for me to get into words, hopefully that gets the gist of it) that I don't see as a 'personal other', but, in my paradigm, I see that Divine as being systemic to everything, hence insights from what I learn/experience can be termed as the Divine acting.
Point being, that she used language more open to metaphor/interpretation, and you were the one to equate it with a theological precept, that of 'Divine Intervention'.
Just sayin'
I have a difficult time seeing claims of divine intervention in individual’s lives as nothing more than hubris masquerading as humility.
@Nancy T,
This whole exchange is a perfect example of why critical thinking is so important.
Can you imagine a world in which the definition of every object or point of discussion had to be clarified before moving forward with social intercourse? Commerce, science, politics and even the arts would all come to a complete standstill. What you propose is the equivalent of living in Bizarro Land.
Honestly, Nancy, if anyone in this thread meant “divine” in any other way than what it is commonly understood and defined as, then it is up to those individuals to state up front that they are just making things up as they go along to suit their own agendas or whims.
@ Godless
“This whole exchange is a perfect example of why critical thinking is so important.”
The hubris in the thought is this, “critical thinking” excludes itself as an object of question. It parades itself as a standard of higher truth, to which it is entitled to berate and demean others with relished distain, ever proud of its attainments.
The flaw is that it doesn’t go far enough, so enamoured with the glitter of its own brightness. How to get the monkey to release the jewel?
@Godless
Actually, critical thinking depends on logic, which by extension includes definitions.
It isn’t a whim, the term “Divine” has been used to mean miraculous, or wonderful. It has been used metaphorically and poetically in ways that do not mean ‘Abrahamic God’, or a personal God.
It has been used by Deists and others to mean a non-personal and non-interventionist ‘god’ (some of those would hesitate to even personify ‘god’ as a distinct ‘being’).
So, in its historic use, ‘Divine’ has meanings that are not made up by people in this thread, let alone to suit ‘agendas or whims’.
By the way, while “Divine Intervention” can be used as a colloquialism, it is more commonly known as a theological concept with specific meaning regarding the ‘Abrahmic God’.
You might want to check the flame-thrower at the door, it isn’t terribly conducive to discussion. Just an idea.
@Ann Cardon,
“The hubris in the thought is this, “critical thinking” excludes itself as an object of question. It parades itself as a standard of higher truth”
Wrong. You couldn’t be more in error. In fact, critical thiking is a process derived from a specific skill set, not a standard. My point is that it is better to be taught HOW to think (critical thinking skills)as opposed to being taught WHAT to think (dogma, woo, superstition, religion, bullshit indoctrination).
Your position is the classic straw-man argument in which a false image of a subject is propped up and then attacked. We can continue this when you demonstrate a basic understanding of the scientific method, logic and critical thinking.
@Godless
“We can continue this when you demonstrate a basic understanding of the scientific method, logic and critical thinking.”
You’ve made my point quite beautifully.
@Ann
My bad for jumping in, I suppose, but I do feel the need to quibble.
“Critical Thinking” is the same as “Scientific Method” or “Theoretical Physics”… it is merely a tool, it is unable to do anything of itself. It neither parades about, nor can it demean or degrade. If those using it ‘exclude’ it from discussion…they are doing it wrong. And, if they use “Critical Thinking” while also demeaning or degrading someone… then it is a projection to think that one of the tools they are using is responsible for questionable actions.
By the way, neither of you seem to be going to such extremes that ‘hubris’ is particularly descriptive. At most, you both seem to be getting a bit shirty with each other. Maybe deep breaths of oxygen?
@Nancy T
I agree with what you are saying, which I think is this, no thought, method of thought or descriptions of thought are ever really seperated from the humanity from which it springs.
I try to look behind the concepts at the person’s energy that is expressing the concept. Sometimes a glimpse is caught of what perhaps motivates another to say what they are saying.
Hi Monster
Thanks for your comment!
All I know is that it wasn’t me who opened up the door of escape from the jar!
Something much bigger than me intervened!
You can read my story at http://www.authonomy.com entitled the Prodigal Prophet if you’re interested.
Who knows why God does what he does? Job asked the question as have I following the death of my son.
@Nancy,
I didn’t properly explain the issue or you didn’t get it. In reviewing my comments, I believe it is the former. Mea culpa…may bad.
To clarify:
The issue is not what is meant by the word “divine”, but the phrase, “divine intervention”.
This implies the action with intent and that (normally) implies a sentient being, n’est-ce pas?
Flamethrower? Hardly. In regards to my demeanor, this is nothing compared to how I treat many fellow atheists on other blogs.
@Ann
Actually, he made my point quite beautifully.
Of course Godless is free to drop out of the conversation any time, the fact that he/she (sorry for presuming male earlier) said, “We can continue this when you demonstrate a basic understanding of the scientific method, logic and critical thinking’” shows a level of impatience and crotchetyness.
@Godless
I hear there is this guy that is a pretty good teacher. Goes by the name of Socrates. You should look him up sometime.
/end of sarcasm, couldn’t resist the humour though. Besides, you’re pretty good bandying about a flamethrower, so I figure my brandishing a Bic in your direction isn’t going to be a big deal.
Unfortunately, I had already had a response typed, and the computer ate it. So, this is the rewrite, and in the meantime Ann has posted.
@Ann, I think I have an idea of what you mean about looking ‘behind the concepts at the person’s energy that is expressing the concept’. The problem is, that while you might get a glimpse of what perhaps motivates them, it is a highly subjective interpretation. That doesn’t make it wrong, just don’t mistake your perceptions as ‘facts’ or ‘truth’ about the other person. We all have impressions of people based on tons of sensory input, sorting through them is the more difficult thing. Everyone’s mileage may vary.
@NancyT
” think I have an idea of what you mean about looking ‘behind the concepts at the person’s energy that is expressing the concept’. The problem is, that while you might get a glimpse of what perhaps motivates them, it is a highly subjective interpretation. That doesn’t make it wrong, just don’t mistake your perceptions as ‘facts’ or ‘truth’ about the other person. We all have impressions of people based on tons of sensory input, sorting through them is the more difficult thing. Everyone’s mileage may vary.”
Yes…just a glimpse.
@Godless
I retract ‘flamethrower’ in terms of usual Interwebs use.
However, one can modify for the majority audience in the pursuit of discussion. Throwing around things like living in ‘Bizarro Land’ and the disingenous use of ‘Honestly, Nancy’ aren’t really necessary. N’est-ce pas?
@Nancy T,
““We can continue this when you demonstrate a basic understanding of the scientific method, logic and critical thinking’” shows a level of impatience and crotchetyness”
A turd I may be, but being unpleasant doesn’t make my argument any less valid Nancy.
@Ann
I get too wordy.
My point wasn’t the ‘size’ of the insight.. ie ‘just a glimpse’, but rather that the ‘glimpse’ is a perception of the viewer, and does not equate with ‘knowing’ what are the motivations of another person.
You may have understood me the first time around, but I wanted to be clear that it wasn’t the size, but the nature, of the glimpse that I was giving a caution about.
“Throwing around things like living in ‘Bizarro Land’ and the disingenous use of ‘Honestly, Nancy’ aren’t really necessary. N’est-ce pas?”
No, they are not “necessary”, but they do make my point rather colorfully. I stand accused of being uncivil because I refuse to show respect for ideas or concepts that are unsupported by evidence. So be it, guilty as charged.
ROFL!
I don’t recall questioning your validity of that statement, rather that it was needlessly … ‘turdy’…and is somewhat at the root of where Ann ran amiss. It can sometimes be hard not to realize it is the person, not the tool, that is being turdy.
I figured the mention of Socrates might have had the implication… One can teach someone by using logic, to understand what the tool is, and where the problems lie, if one chooses.
As I stated, you’re free to end any discussion you like. I merely wanted to state to Ann that the way you did it has an air of ‘criical thinking’ or ‘logic’ but isn’t really… it is valid, in terms of you not wanting to discuss with her unless she demonstrates those skills to you.
My point, that has nothing to do with logic or critical thinking. It is your choice. And that, in fact, not everyone needs the same skills/skill set to have a conversation. So, your choice shouldn’t be presented quite so depersonalized (use of ‘we’… you could have just said you didn’t want to continue the discussion).
ie, really, I was just mostly trying to send out an implied ‘play nice’… but then again, that is my innner school Ma’am getting up in front of the class.
I don’t think anyone was asking you to respect the ideas. For my part, I was aiming at the difference of disagreeing and respecting the people, regardless of their ideas.
A point made so colourfully that it offends others and they tune you out, isn’t really a point ‘made’, is it? Not that I did that, but that is the risk run when one isn’t careful of the distinction of disagreeing with an idea/belief/etc, and disrespecting the person who holds it. You don’t have to ‘respect’ them either, so to speak. Civil discourse is the general idea.
I am also aware that Ann hasn’t been flame-free. I just figured that the one extolling the use of logic, critical thinking, and the scientific method was the one to look to for ‘civil discourse’… but then again, with the now disclosed ‘turdiness’ acknowledged, I willingly back down and give the floor over to the ‘hey you kids get off my lawn’ guy. (I’m presuming you know the reference, but if not it equals ‘shirty and/or crochety’ for the most part. Then again, I’m getting pretty crochety in my old age, so, glass houses and all that.
Surely the point of David’s cartoon today is about us (the church) being sucked into a “vision” that leadership pushes onto us? If the jar gets broken everybody in it has the opportunity to escape, don’t they? The truth is that most don’t know that they are supposed to grab that opportunity and run out as fast as they can. Most people like the idea of being controlled by a higher power. It gives them security.Of course, if they are truly “pickled” then they are as good as dead.
David ought to drop in on this conversation and put us all straight. Where are you today, David?…Crysal.
@Crystal…
I love the cartoon. Then again, I love almost all of David’s cartoons (and Artwork in general).
I agree totally, “If the jar gets broken everybody in it has the opportunity to escape, don’t they?”
There was just side discussion as to the ‘agent’ of the jar being broken. The individual, God, cicumstance, etc. etc.
One of the reasons I like David’s comics so much, is that they often can be open to a number of interpretations, or raise a number of ideas. I would be more than happy to have David drop in the on the conversation, but I like letting his work speak for itself. Besides, I think I’m too bent to be put straight. : >
I think that we can also look at ourselves. There is a case to be made that at times, it the congregation, not the leaders, that are doing the pushing. Though, being church politics, the complexity is usually greater, with cartels and agendas and groupings.
@Crystal,
Great observations. Agreed.
“The truth is that most don’t know that they are supposed to grab that opportunity and run out as fast as they can”
That was certainly me about 15 or so years ago…
Nancy, In the church I was in, some people did put forth some wacky ideas that the leadership thought not worthy of pursuing, so they dealt with them accordingly. In the IC I guess that is the only way to handle things. Hence my exit. The “vision” however was kind of pushed by the leaders. They said that somebody had to make decisions and God had ordained them to the task, so unless the congregants agreed to obey, they either left or kept quiet.
Regarding the comments on this blog today, I just felt that we were debating semantics that took away from the cartoon.
Where is David, anyway? He ought not to have a life outside of this blog Ha Ha! He created this monster so should at all times stick around to monitor it. Just joking, David. This blog is much better than some I’ve been reading. Here, people are generally polite, intelligent, helpful, and patient with our weaknesses for the most part, otherwise I would quit it right now. Most of us are seekers of something outside ourselves, even you, Godless Monster. Am I not correct?…Crystal.
“even you, Godless Monster. Am I not correct?…Crystal.”
you betcha…
WOW, difficult to share an experience without a brain stretching clash of verbs and nouns. And this is why I am staying out of the fray.
ps, I do “grok” the pickle analogy. Thanks Naked Pastor!
Hi Prodigal Prophet,
I’ve spent much of my day reading your story on the Authonomy site. It is so well written. Normally I shy away from testimonial type books written by Christians because they are so often formulaic in design and downright boring. Congratulations.Your experiences so mirror my own although I haven’t been a part of as many churches as you. I believe every word of what you wrote because I have had the visions, the voices, the dreams, the personal encounters with Jesus, and the guidance that you were given, plus some of the awful church stuff, too.
I’m now pursuing the mystical tradition, at long last. If I was in church, I would not be able to. I would be called a heretic, or a liar.
I am interested in how the Authonomy setup works for you. As I have spent the past twelve years writing a book, similar in many ways to yours, although with a different theme running through it, I am looking to get it published. I’ve heard good and bad things about the site, and so far, am still hoping for a regular publisher. My book doesn’t fit the traditional “Christian” genre, and I don’t think yours does either. You don’t have enough king James scripture verses in it for any Christian publisher to be interested in putting it out ( I’ve talked to Christian agents about this, and they are as frustrated as the writers at how boxed in to rigid rules Christian books have to be ) and that is a sad fact about book publishing today. Please give me some feedback on how your book does. It deserves to be out there for readers all over the world.
I am sad for how you and your wife lost your little baby boy. And not at all surprised at the lack of empathy you received from the church you were in at the time. The organization always comes first, and that is terrible.
I urge all on this blog to do what I did and read your beautifully written story. They will never again doubt what the IC is all about. Not to say that there are not good ones out there – luckily there still are some. But, there is something wrong with all that control and money grabbing.
Take care, and will talk to you again…Crystal.
Hi Prodigal Prophet,
I see you wrote a second book ‘Mystical Musings” so will read that one, too…Crystal.
Crystal
Thanks for your kind words regarding my book The Prodigal Prophet.By the way one of David’s lovely paintings will be the cover for the paperback. I wrote it for those disillusioned with the Christian game. Something in there just doesn’t square up! I also wrote it for those who’ve experienced trauma in their lives to show that there is a Presence out there that comes to us when we’re at the end of our rope.
Great to hear you’ve written your own book. Have a look at Night Reading a new independent publishing house over here in the UK. They’re publishing my work. All Christian publishing houses turned it down – too much honesty perhaps?
You can email me at charlie.boyd@talk21.com if you’d like to correspond further.
Blessings
Charlie