my preacher's wisdom continues "Imagine that"

My preacher told a story from his life last Sunday, and I was struck by it and he said I could repeat it, as long as I didn't name names (except for him, Rev. Bob Peak).

He related how years ago he was working closely with a hispanic preacher to be the hispanic church leader for the province. This Spanish-speaking teacher was from a pentecostal background, and one of the elders in the church hierarchy approached Bob saying "Pentecostals don't do well in our churches."

Bob's response, "Imagine that! The Holy Spirit moving in our churches!"

I thank God for people like Bob, who live what they preach, and are not afraid to remind their bosses who the real boss is. Also, he reminds us all what the attitude of Christians should be. It follows quite beautifully with the Moravian motto In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love.

In another story related by him (or another preacher I respect), he was at some church conference where they were deciding on some change. There was a public debate about nominating a committee to study the issue, and it was suggested they have a person representing the various facets of the issue (I do not recall what the issue was). The church leadership nominated this person and that person, and had formed a diverse group of minds, and were almost concluded, and my preacher spoke up: "Are we going to have anyone that represents God's point of view?"

Preacher's wisdom about Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition and God

My preacher (Rev. Bob Peak) told a short little story that struck me as unusually wise. Although a wise man, the wisdom was not his originally. Before he was a pastor, and before seminary, my preacher was simply a churchgoer, and after a Bible study had a question for his own preacher. He had run into the big idea that the God of Abraham is often seen as the God of the Jews, and of the Christians, and of the Muslims. I personally think it depends on how you are looking at the matter. Anthropologically speaking, He is the same God. In the theological sense, I think most people would agree on "No". He asked his pastor about this complicated question, and the old man thought about it. He finally said, "I'd hate to stand before God not having known Jesus."

That strikes me as an excellent answer.

I should not put words into either my preacher's mouth or his preacher before him, but in my thinking I don't dare decide what God would do, and certainly not what He should do. Not only is it not my decision to make, but I am certain I lack both the wisdom and the righteousness to make such a decision. Certainly the Bible provides guidance in such matters, and we can and should study and learn, but it makes me angry (I hope in a righteous way) when people talk as if they can tell God what to do, and when.

My preacher says something else that is meaningful regarding this: "My job is to preach, not judge. That's God's job, not mine."

Karl Barth, noted theologian speaks on the Trinity

I can't find the exact qoute by Barth tonight, but I was told he said:

"Try to understand the Trinity and you will lose your mind; try to deny it, and you will lose you soul"

I thought that was a well-said version of many of my own thoughts on the matter, and applies well to many matters of God concerning predestination, purgatory, and literal Judgement calls.

Here I might add: I think of purgatory, not as a place, but as an instantaneous process of cleansing and firey division of goats from sheep, however that works. And it seems very possible every human being has some measure of goat, which must be torn out. On the other had, it is also possible there are people who are goats and people who are sheep, and there is only one or the other. I don't decide these things, nor do I know. (Oh, and the very idea of instantanous within the concept of eternity is silly.)

Wikipedia says that Barth rejected the label of neo-orthodoxy, and I can well understand why he might, although that is the way he is best known.

I also read on Wikipedia that he was an activist against the Nazis within Germany, which sounds like a very brave thing to have done.

http://trinityinyou.com/understanding-karl-barth-pt-1/

"The Empty Birdcage"

I heard a story in church last Sunday that I wanted to share (as I remember it). I'm not sure if it's accreddited to any writer, but it's more than an anecdote.

A older man was walking down a dusty road in a small town. He was a preacher. Along from the other direction came a young boy of maybe 7 or 8. He boy was carrying something. As the boy came closer, the precher could tell it was an old rusty birdcage, and soon he could even see a few brown unhappy-loooking birds inside.

"What ya got there?" said the man.

"I just caught me some birds out in the feilds here." the boy said proudly. "I trapped 'em. Set bait and all. They wasn't too smart."

"What you catching birds for?"

"Oh, I'm gonna take 'em home and have a real good time. I'm gonna pull out their feathers, and dunk 'em in water to see if they swim, and poke them with my pocket-knife." He brandished his sharp toy in the sun.

"What are you gonna do with them after that?"

"Oh, kill 'em. I got cats around the house that will have some fun, too."

The preacher looked thoughtful. He said, "Well, son, I hate to spoil your fun, but I was wondering if I could buy those birds from you. The whole cage, actually."

The little boy stood wide eyed. "You'd buy these mangy birds? They ain't even pretty. Just feild birds. Good for nothin'. Why'd anybody spend good money on birds like this?"

"Well, I do. How much would you want"

The boy looked rather confused. Scrunched up his nose. Then, he got a crafty look in his eye.

"Twenty bucks, mister" It was pretty clear the boy had picked out a sum he thought was astronomical.

"Okay," said the preacher, and pulled out his wallet. Handing the money to the youngster, he smiled at the boy. The boy set down the cage a bit roughly and hurried off without another word. Maybe he wanted to get home with his bounty before anything happened.

The preacher picked up the cage of frightened and disoriented birds huddled in the bottom. He walked around, and found an alley with a pleasant sunny grassy spot at the end. There was a meduim-sized tree there. The man set the cage down, opened it, and backed away a bit. He had thought about tapping the cage to encourage the birds to leave, and although he decided that wouldn't be wrong, it was still unnecessary to further excite the creatures. The birds were shy at first, but soon one of them tested the open door, perched at the edge, half-in and half-out. After a moment of hesitation, it darted up into the branches. This seemed to give confidence to the other birds, who soon followed.

The preacher smiled quietly, and walked back over to pick up the cage. While he had waited for the birds to realize they were free, he had thought about what to do with it. He had at first thought it was merely junk to be thrown away, but on further reflection decided it might be useful after all. Next Sunday, he'd bring it with him to the pulpit. It'd make a pretty good conversation starter, he thought. And that's the way he thought about his sermons: as conversations. True, the sermons by nature were pretty one-way, but instead of a lecture he tried to make it feel like it was one friend telling a story to another. The best story ever told, he thought to himself.

We can imagine a conversation between God and Satan much like that between the preacher and the boy. There was a trap, and those who were trapped, and also a price.

Have you read 'Atlas Shrugged'?

I haven't, but I have heard A LOT about it. The American news landscape is full of Ayn Rind (spelling to come). I don't know all that much about this ideology directly, but indirectly I have some impressions, and apparantly it preaches about "The Virtue of Selfishness" and the evils of a "Culture of Dependancy" among the needy. I just want to say I recognize many similarities with Confucianism. Wikipedia calls it a "ethical-sociopolitical teaching" in it's original form, although it is often considered a religion these days. The Confusian inverse Golden Rule ("Do NOT do unto others what you would NOT have done uno you) seems a close analog to Ayn Rind's socio-economic ideology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism I've gotta say, the title is amazing, a full of subtle meaning, but I also must say it's extremely confusing to me. I seems to me the idea of the mythical figure of Atlas shrugging (abadoning his responsibilty of holding the earth on his shoulders) says chaos comes from "shrugging" which is quite at odds with what I am given to undertand this is all about.

Science and Religion are Compatible, book says

Where the Conflict Really Lies : Science, Religion, and Naturalism
http://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-ebook/dp/B005X3SAHY

I heard about this book on NPR. I invite you to listen here.

From what I understand, the book seems to have a very simple point, but one that really needed to be said and it so very basic and yet overlooked. The incompatability of religion and science just simply doesn't exist. They might not agree, but they aren't opposed to each other the way most people seem to think.

The mutual disagreement arises between religion and naturalism (often seen as atheism). Now, many scientific thinkers are indeed beleivers in naturalism, but athiem cannot be "proved" any more than theism can. Specifically, both cannot be observed, and are merely an assumption. Admittedly, certain elements of religion are implausible notions, at best, and are the ones most often thought of, such as fundamentalist creationism. But even there, room for thinking allows plausability.

Your thoughts?

As a book, I have no basis for real recommendation, one way or the other. At first blush, it sounds like the book could have made its case as an article rather than a book, or as an entry in a compilation, perhaps.

What have you read about Taoism? Winnie-the-Pooh?

I was waiting for the computer at the library about a week ago, and wandered along some book aisles, and stumbled across The Te of Piglet. I was merely curious at first, and then amazed. It was very readable, very interesting, and moreover a subject matter that I knew very little about.

It turns out to be the sequel to The Tao of Pooh, which seems equally as good. And equal is a fitting description, as it is termed a "companion book" rather than a sequal, per se.

Taoism (pronounced, more or less, Dow-ism) is an ancient Chinese-originating religion-philosophy, while Te is a Taoist word meaning (sorta) Virtue in Action.

For an excerpt about the Three Vinegar Tasters go here
http://www.edepot.com/taoism_3-vinegar-tasters.html
and I found this curious: http://dudespaper.com/careful-man-theres-vinegar-here.html/

Be Not Deceived...

The title of this blog post comes from the Bible verse 1 Corinthians 15:33 (as I recall off the top of my head).

Today, being Sunday and making it to church, I was given much to think on. This time, anyway. It is always a treat when I accidentally receive a thought-problem, and this one is not the source of my blog, but is a reaction to wanting to blog about my conclusions, because I enjoy the blogging (writing) process.

When I began this blog, there were a few subjects I wanted to stay away from (such as religion), because they distracted from the basic "themes" of my blog, enthusiastic ideas (such as science fiction, zoology, ethics, gaming, books) applied to everyday life. My everyday life, anyways. However, that wasn't a easy choice to make, and this is somewhat a retraction. But not exactly.

There are many people who would consider my blog as it stands pretty eclectic and disordered. On the reverse side I have identified at least 5 major areas I chose to omit from my blogging previously: 1) religion 2) human sexuality and my preferences 3) my personal life and relationships 4) my job when I have one and 5) my health and related biological functions

I am very serious about my spirituality, and I think of my observations in that realm the most important blogging subject I could have. Thus, I haven't been very happy excusing myself from that discourse. Further, my attitude about human sexuality would be the most fun to blog about. It is grating that it so easily discredits a person, and so my sense of humor that I revel in privately I choose to hide. Likewise, my family and love life (and job, in some cases) mean an enormous amount to me, but is too susceptible to personal invasion, while my health is a vital subject, quite literally in many cases.

Did I forget any big area of self-censored blogging material?

Henceforth, I think it would be my uneasy policy to be more direct about some matters, such as my girlfriend (do you mind if I name you, lover baby?) and my job. Also, this website (blogspot) is really kind to allow one user to have multiple blogs, so I imagine I will begin a blog adjacent to this one focusing on religious matters. The reason for the schism is pretty obvious. In case I have readers of natural history matters they might not want to be immersed in highly controversial religious matters. My sexual humor and my health remain a bit more personal.

It may seem distinctly odd for a churchgoing person to have an active sexual (dare I say kinky?) side. Oh, well. That's me.

The God of Albert, Issac, and Stephen

This is referring to Issac Newton and is a pun of the Bibilcal phrase "The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob" used to identify.

Anyway, this follows my blog post on Stephen Hawking's A Breif History of Time, and it a short rumination on the attitudes towards God expressed.

Issac is the easiest. It's pretty well documented that he had some strong pro-religious thoughts. He incorporated ideas of religious purity in his scientific experiments, especially dealing with alchemy. He is reputed to have been very unhappy that his gravitational theories seemed to promote a relative understanding of space (distance between heavenly bodies), on the grouds that absolute space fit better with his Christian concepts.

I do not know much about Hawking's thoughts on the matter, other than his concillatory language in his book, Breif Time.

He goes so far to say: "One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning...An expanding universe does not preclue a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!"

Albert Einstein is a bit of an enigma. He has some great pro-religion comments attributed to him, as well as some anti-religious ideas also attributed. I just don't know. At the least (or most), he might have beleived in "a" God, just not in the Judeo-Christian God. Again, I dunno.
The best has to be:
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

I chose to make no comments at this time. I need to go blow my nose.

what have you read in Persian poetry?

Probably not much. I think poetry from the Islamic world is fairly accessible, especially if you count the whole of the Quran. But Persian is fairly specific, and rather antiquated to boot.

So, I came across a small collection by Scholastic (circa 1975) at the local Goodwill. The book was a translation of poems of an 11th-century philosopher and scholar, and since it was cheap and uncommon-seeming I bought it. I was pleased, and suprised. Let me share a bit with you.

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went.

The worldly hope men set their hearts upon
Turns ashes -- or it prospers; and anon,
Like snow upon the desert's dusty face,
Lighting a little hour or two--is gone.

Alike for those who for to-day prepare,
And those that after some to-morrow stare,
A Muezzin from the tower of darkness cries,
"Fools! your reward is neither here nor there."

Why, all the saints and sages who discuss'd
Of the two worlds so wisely -- they are thrust
Like foolish prophets forth; their words to scorn
Are scatter'd, and their mouths are stopt with dust.

'How They Eat in Heaven'

I just finished reading The Bean Trees by Barbara Kingsolver this week. One of the best passages tickled my fancy for human decency and thoughtfulness and intentional living, and now I am going to share the parable with you:

'How They Eat in Heaven' is the title of Chapter 7, wherein is found this story:

Transcribed text found at:
http://web.mit.edu/norvin/www/somethingelse/kingsolver.html

Turtle, wielding a chopstick in each hand, had managed to pick up a chunk of pineapple. Little by little she moved it upward toward her wide-open mouth, but the sticks were longer than her arms. The pineapple hung in the air over her head and then fell behind her onto the floor. We laughed and cheered her on, but Turtle was so startled she cried. I picked her up and held her on my lap.

"Tortolita, let me tell you a story," Estevan said. "This is a South American, wild Indian story about heaven and hell," Mrs. Parsons made a prudish face, and Estevan went on. "If you go to visit hell, you will see a room like this kitchen. There is a pot of delicious stew on the table, with the most delicate aroma you can imagine. All around, people sit, like us. Only they are dying of starvation. They are jibbering and jabbering," he looked extra hard at Mrs. Parsons,"but they cannot get a bite of this wonderful stew God has made for them. Now, why is that?"

"Because they're choking? For all eternity?" Lou Ann asked. Hell, for Lou Ann, would naturally be a place filled with sharp objects and small round foods.

"No," he said. "Good guess, but no. They are starving because they only have spoons with very long handles. As long as that." He pointed to the mop, which I had forgotten to put away. "With these ridiculous, terrible spoons, the people in hell can reach into the pot but they cannot put the food in their mouths. Oh, how hungry they are! Oh, how they swear and curse each other!" he said, looking again at Virgie. He was enjoying this.

"Now," he went on,"you can go and visit heaven. What? You see a room just like the first one, the same table, the same pot of stew, the same spoons as long as a sponge mop. But these people are all happy and fat."

"Real fat, or do you just mean well-fed?" Lou Ann asked.

"Just well-fed," he said. "Perfectly, magnificently well-fed, and very happy. Why do you think?"

He pinched up a chunk of pineapple in his chopsticks, neat as you please, and reached all the way across the table to offer it to Turtle. She took it like a newborn bird.

Summary found at:
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/beantrees/section5.rhtml

Estevan tells a story. He says that in hell, people sit around a big table with plenty of food, starving to death because they must eat with long-handled spoons and cannot manage to get the spoons in their mouths. Heaven, he says, looks just the same: same table, same food, same spoons. But in heaven, the people use the long-handled spoons to feed one another. Estevan demonstrates by feeding Turtle a new piece of pineapple.

swirling dervishes YouTube

I've heard of the Swirling Dervishes (aka Whirling Dervishes aka Sufi dancing) for many years, since college and perhaps high school, but this video (when I saw it on DVD) was an eye-opening experience. It is beautiful and stirring. Don't you agree?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgjCfHn3x2g

Have you read 'Tragedy of the Commons'?

Neither have I actually. Yet.
It's a book by Garrett Hardin on ecological issues, and has extremely impressed me. In fact, it may just be the most impressive non-fiction book I have EVER come across, due the sheer density of important ideas that need to be said. I heard about this scholarly work in an environmental health class in college, and finally looked it up.

What I found on Ebay was "Managing the Commons" which is a anthology of collected works dealing with this subject, but includes 'Tragedy of the Commons' and is edited by Hardin and partially written by along with another impressive scholar-editor Baden.
This paperback was a mere 73 cents plus $4 shipping. I am floored by that.

Anyway, I'm only though the introduction and first chapter, and already I have such a terribly high opinion of the book. I feels like ecological issues risen to the level of high philosophy or even theology. In fact, I have decided to apply those labels to this blog, out of respect for the authorship.

As far as I can best explian it, the book is a mediation on the overexploitation of unprotected natural resources and related issues, such a population growth, human nature, and even political systems.

In other news, I finally bought "Hey, That's My Fish" last weekend. I am so happy with it! I played it repeatedly with my family Saturday night, and it was a rousing success. It's described on one website at least as "abstract strategy" which I feel is an appropriate and fun label! Now, onward.

Bedroom scenes on TV

[Warning: soapbox and unpopular opinions]

Its not a popular opinion to have, but I don't think TV and movies should be as explicit as they are. Especially in the case of bedroom scenes, but also in regards to language, violence, and other adult-themes. (I'm a little in doubt about the violence: it has been observed that kids and teens are pretty violent individuals, and this is a nondestructive outlet, comparable to shooting things in video games. With that said, such violent digital slaughter should be directed away from police and human beings when possible. Regarding games for youth.)

Personally, I want to support freedom of choice and expression, in fact I prefer a open society with the least limits on personal choices, but that also includes social responsibility. It comes down to for me to the idea of consent. Rape is by far the most well-known nonconsensual act, but I think the ideas apply to any public intercourse (pun intended) if it has the reasonable chance of affecting others without their being aware that it might happen.

I enjoy watching older movies, such as John Wayne, because they are refreshingly discreet. Of course the audience knows that there is plenty of bedroom antics going on behind the scenes, but there are some things we just don't need to see. I recall hearing my parents talk about the "community standards" for TV when they were kids, no active bedroom scenes, and no ads for tampons, no underwear models, or any of that. It just wasn't done.
UNLESS we, as consenting adults, have specifically chosen to watch a movie with explicit material. And here, I'm not even talking nudity, I'm not even talking about hot and heavy athletics, I'm talking about the average non-nudity "simulated sex" bedroom scene in a broadcast television drama.
But couldn't we all use less "erectile disfunction" and "herpes" ads?

Let me be clear.
I ENJOY UNDERWEAR MODELS. I THINK AN HONEST PORTRAYAL OF SEX IS IMPORTANT. and CONSENTING ADULTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE THE ENTERTAINMENT THEY WANT
I just don't think it belongs on the public airwaves, or in PG movies.

Okay, I'm getting off my soapbox now

have you read The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin?

The second part of his autobiography is written in 1784.

I hadn't realize how thoroughly some of his ideas have permeated American culture. In many cases, his ideal really is the American ideal. Weird. Sure, I knew Franklin was a patriarch of American culture, but I didn't realize the extent to people who have never thought about him, except for 50 bills.

For instance, Franklin by his old age seemed quite set in his ways and quite dismissive of beliefs that incorporated "dogma" and doctrine.
He seemed to be only interested in religious thought that focused on practical civilized good-behavior.
He didn't much care why someone did something, just how they did it. Their habit. That's quite like American churches today, but also Japanese Shinto and many other world religions.
He had no use apparently for spirituality, or for what was in a person's heart unless it affected their habit.
So as to not slur Franklin, please let me quote his Autobiography:

"Tho' I seldom attended any Public Worship, I had still an opinion of its Propriety, and of its Utility when rightly conducted... [the] Discourses were chiefly either polemic Arguments, or Explications of peculiar Doctrines of our Sect, and were all to me very dry, uninteresting and unedifying, since not a single moral Principle was inculcated or enforce'd, their Aim seeming to be rather to make us Presbyterians than good Citizens."
and again
"...these I esteem'd the Essentials of every Religion, and being to be found in all the Religions we had in our Country I respected them all, tho' with different degrees of Respect as I found them more or less mixed with other Articles which without any Tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm Morality, serv'd principally to divide us & make us unfriendly to one another."

He didn't get everything he wanted though. He was very much a humbug, and there would be nightlife in no city in America if he had his way. Alcohol would be much harder to obtain. Live music and theatre wouldn't be so important.
I wonder, though, did he partially succeed? I have heard that America seems very dull compared to many places in Europe. How does it compare with other parts of the world?

I want to say though that I continue to have a deep respect for the man. Much of his philosophy is brilliant. It is so very true that It is hard for an empty Sack to stand upright in reference to morality. Also, when Franklin observes that wise men are usually quiet and don't enter into arguments. And then when he teaches about making it a habit to say things in a less provocative way, to ease communication ("I apprehend this..." or "It seems to me that..."). It's just his ideas feel pretty empty on occasion.

An aside here: I don't know if you've heard of him, but Cotton Mather was just before Franklin's time and wrote a well-known book or two, one titled "Essays to Do Good" which Franklin read as a kid. Sounded worth trying to find online or elsewhere.

Moral Principles of Subjectivism and Proximity

I have long held the opinion, from a morality point of view, just because there are starving people in Africa, or homeless in Chicago, or even one of my best friends dying from cancer, etc., I don't have to enjoy getting shit on.

Pardon my verbage, but at times like this, I think it is appropriate to call things what they are.

I would call this a principle of Subjectivism, because the circumstances of other's lives do not require me to be pleased with things that are not good. I am not going to be objective and think "oh well, others have it so much worse than I do" and let it go at that. It's not an invalid thought, but it's not a realistic basis for rational concerns. Overall happiness and satisfaction might can be based on objective thinking, but not an immediate complaint.

Another concept: Proximity. This is very similar to above, if not the same. What happens to me matters more to me than other things happening to other people. I don't have to feel selfish or ethically deficient. Just because my neighbor is dying, it doesn't make me any happier my house burned down.

FACT Critical Thinging "Skeptics" Meetup group

Not too long ago I joined the Forsth Area Critical Thinkers group on Meetup.com, and I've been to a handful of meetings since (they only meet once a month, so they accrue slowly).

http://www.meetup.com/f-a-c-t/messages/boards/thread/9037672

This morning, I was responding to a post I made on the group, and since I have made a very nice and well-crafted piece of discussion, for laziness sake I thought I'd repost it here.
My major objection seems to be that the group isn't as much a critical thinking discussion group or even "skeptics" group as a athiests' political group. And that bothers me, although that's not my call to make, except for how I choose to use my time.

Thus,

"I thought this was a critical thinking group?"

Start a new discussion Track this discussion Add a reply
Rich
Posted May 1, 2010 10:02 AM Link to this discussion Edit Quote in reply

user 4826257
Lexington, NC
Post #: 8

I am rather displeased by the trend I've seen in my last few visits (a grand total of two; not a real big sampling I admit...haha). The trend is this: less emphasis on critical thinking, and more emphasis on political ideology. I completely agree that the separation of church and state, religious freedom, rights of expression, etc., are very valid topics for discussion and applied critical thinking, but I do not agree that political activism (especially related to personal beliefs) is valid for a critical thinking group. There ARE political activism groups. That's not what I thought this was. Call me spineless, but I have a live and let live take on many such things. I am reminded for a quote from Voltaire (or at least I think it was Voltaire): and since he wrote in French, it is indisputably a paraphrase at best: "I may not agree with anything you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Am I alone in this? I'm not giving up on the worth of the meetup, or topic, or the cheese sticks, or my future interest, but this is just a small objection I wanted to air.

--Rich

***** ******
Posted May 2, 2010 9:38 AM Link to this reply Quote in reply Report as spam
user 10897564
Winston Salem, NC
Post #: 1

******* (agreeing with me)

******* *******
Posted May 19, 2010 9:16 PM Link to this reply Quote in reply Report as spam

user 7748278
Group Organizer
Winston Salem, NC
Post #: 4

I just saw this thread or I would have replied sooner. Feel free to suggest a topic Rich. What topic specifically did you not approve of?



Rich
Posted May 25, 2010 11:35 AM Link to this reply Edit Delete Quote in reply

user 4826257
Lexington, NC
Post #: 11

I really enjoyed the "Myths of Recycling" screening (I know that's not the actual title, but I don't recall). I thought that was going in the direction of where I would like to see this group go, thinking beyond casual socially-accepted "common knowledge." Origins and analysis of misinformation, and so on.

At the moment, I can't really pinpoint a "topic" that I disapproved of (and, of course, my disapproval is a strong word, and is merely my opinion), but it was more about attitudes. And again, attitudes have every right to be divergent from my own and to be expressed and my distaste for them doesn't suggest they don't warrant a Meetup group. Why do I feel like Seinfeld? "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"

Anyway, instead of chastising ourselves into greater critical thinking, the group seems to be currently more heavily leaning towards criticizing the way other's believe. I know for a fact that I don't think about things the way I used to, and partially from that experience I feel it is important to respect other peoples' beliefs, even when in my view they are in error. That brings to mind again my objections to the whole "Draw Muhammad Day" or however it was termed. I fully acknowledge the persuasive arguments made for the effort, "we will not succumb to intimidation", etc, and I have allowed myself to become undecided on the issue.

Okay, suggestions: "Why Wal-Mart is bad for America?" type documentaries, or Global-Warming documentaries, or Lost Boys of Sudan, or just discussing what we've seen in the news lately. Personally, I remain only loosely in touch with current events, and would appreciate a discussion of news. Or maybe a roundtable discussion of "What's on your mind this week?" and then chat about the subject that comes up.

"When things are going wrong..."

This is a line from a worship song sung by my friends at the Twelve Tribes (loooong story). that I heard a few weeks ago.

"When things are going wrong,
Remember the path you're on."

(Paraphrase; from memory)

This applies best to people who do have a core belief system, I would imagine, theological or philosophical or otherwise.

When I first heard this part of the aforementioned song, I wanted badly to cling onto the wisdom I felt was inherent. Then, it slipped from my mind, only to return just now. So i felt I better post while the getting is good ;-)

I don't even have to make any trite remarks. If you (O Gentle Reader) are at all a self-examining person, you've already begun to think. If not, then it doesn't matter what I say or post, does it?