YIN YANG

(AS ORIGINALLY POSTED On ThoughtAudio.com)

Edition #0002

A Philosophical Pinch

BY:
D.S. Martin

YIN YANG
It is fair to note that what has been termed a Theology of Nuance is not too unlike the yin yang of Eastern spiritual philosophies. At this point one might also consider Thomas Merton’s writings. He was criticized for his acceptance of a Zen Buddhist philosophy in his later years. (Possibly we can discuss Merton’s contributions to nuance theology in a future post.)

Nevertheless, nuance theology is being observed in our 21st Century quantum mechanics; much to the annoyance of the many scientists, who’ve married their minds to Ontological Naturalism.

Ontological Naturalism has become the post-modern catholic (universal) equivalent, with scientists acting as the priesthood. You might want to peruse this story from the May 5, 2009 edition of The Wall Street Journal, Science, Spirituality, and Some Mismatched Socks; Researchers Turn Up Evidence of 'Spooky' Quantum Behavior and Put It to Work in Encryption and Philosophy, be sure to read some of the editorial comments of priestly scientists. These men & women often impugn the “foolish” presumptions from the simple-minded laity who live and worship within the religion of catholic Ontological Naturalism.

YouTube has many secular humanists/naturalists that place their faith in "scientific knowledge". I enjoy challenging these, as well as other religious dogmata. This is the best way for one to truly learn and grow (DSM’s growth, as well as the growth of others is an important goal).

Fortunately, challenging religious dogma is also, the surest way of being ostracized by the dogmatists on every side of the many “discussions” of faith and knowledge.

Often times, especially on YouTube, these dialogues are like a reverse/perverse two-way mirror for either side.

YIN: We have the “Christened” (or soiled) and confirmed materialist, who can see only the caricature of the Fundamentalist Creationist. The Material-Man will set out to defend the Holy Word of Darwin (On the Origin of Species) and the religion of Ontological Naturalism, against the perceived heretical doctrine of hope for a dead grandma (resurrection).


YANG: And then there is the “soiled” (or Christened) and confirmed Fundamentalist Creationist, who can see only the caricature of the Hedonist Atheist. And he will set out to defend the Holy Word of God (The Bible) and the religion of Republican Fundamentalism, against the perceived heretical doctrine of hope for a dead planet (global-warming).

The two dogmata above are both caricatures, DSM apologizes for the hyperbole. However, he’s taken part in some of these “dialogues”, and the above hyperbole is not hyper in all cases. Sometimes the scenario above would be better described as hypobole, because at times these dogmatic debates spiral into philosophical bloodbaths.

But, when both sides are willing to really stop and see the individual in the reverse/perverse two-way mirror, not as external enemy, but rather, as an internal fear; then we may truly begin to understand the Truth of the golden rule.

Often times these online venues turn into charnels of once noble, but now dead & forgotten aspirations.

Here, at ThoughtAudio.com and with A Philosophical Pinch, we will endeavor to reanimate the bones we find in the charnels of knowledge. We will venture to put muscle and sinew back where it belongs, in lieu of the opposite, which you may find at countless other online debate shops. We have liberty to think and grow.

Thought is limited…, but only by the inaction of those who think, and then fail to enact.

DSM
p.s. Have you heard the one about the “Fundie” and the “Hedonist”…?

No, I haven't heard that one.

A test & challenge for David Martin

This is a proclamation of a challenge that David Martin has accepted. David is the author of this blog as well as several others. He also maintains three youtube channels, a Myspace page and a facebook page.

Based on the past 2+ years (probably closer to forty-four years) of futility, David has taken a challenge which is somewhat personal, but, also comes as the result of some pointed observations this evening, which were made by his wife, Molly Martin.

The challenge is to simply sacrifice I, me, & my; from and in his daily life.

David has not been active in anything that had previously drawn him into passion or joy, since some painful events occurred. The events were taken personally by David, and he attempted to kill pain by killing passion.

However, the words spoken by Molly tonight, have exposed an interesting link in David's acquiring futility and his personal (aka selfish) will.

Therefore, as David goes forward in his life & business, he will attempt to do so without the assertion of first-person pronouns and/or personal will.

Mr. Martin is not attempting to make a law or rule that will prohibit the first-person.

Nevertheless, until he is confident that he has given control of self to the true I AM, he will tenaciously avoid the offensive pronouns and abdicate authority to Jesus Christ.

We shall see if I AM LORD or if he is lord (you can figure that last line out.)

DSM

Thoughts on Pan's Labyrinth

(I have attempted to not include any spoilers, for any who have not yet seen this movie.)

[A word of caution about this movie, I did not like the graphic depiction of violence in two or three of the scenes. So, a word to the wise...]

I relate to the two adults who Ofelia trusts, the mother and the lady concierge, Mercedes.

Each of these central caretakers for Ofelia, tell her that when she is older (and ostensibly wiser) she will become as they are, i.e. pragmatic & utilitarian.

When maturity comes, Ofelia must give-up her hope, dreams and belief in "fairy tales".
This should be juxtaposed to Jesus' words in Mt 18:3-6
"and said, "Most certainly I tell you, unless you turn, and become as little children, you will in no way enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. [4] Whoever therefore humbles himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. [5] Whoever receives one such little child in my name receives me, [6] but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him that a huge millstone should be hung around his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depths of the sea.

This also would be a motivation to never seek to "mature".
Why would Ofelia have any desire to become, either;
1. The lover to a demon, as her mother had chosen
2. Or, the concierge and lead housemaid to satan’s instrument of pain, as Mercedes had chosen?
There is a particular scene when Ofelia's mother finds out that she has placed a mandrake under the her bed?
The mother is very pointed about the need for Ofelia to give up hope, and then she threw the mandrake (hope) into the fire.
I think the fire symbolizes satan's domain (aka hell), the mandrake represents the growing hope that is inside of both, the mother and Ofelia.
The mother attempts to kill Ofelia's hope by destroying the mandrake, however, she, in-fact, only kills her own hope & dreams.

Would hope threaten the mother's reality? I don't know.
Or maybe, Ofelia's hope represented an indictment of the mother's compromises.

In any case, it challenges me to consider what I demand of my kids. How much hope, of my children, should I be willing to incinerate, so that they are well grounded in reality?

I struggle with some of the concepts.
There is a frightening aspect of children choosing "the hope" of death, rather than the corresponding "hopelessness of life."
But, I feel the correlation and it bothers me.

It disturbs me that the life that Ofelia is promised by the faun, appears to have such a strong resemblance to death.
Why does life resemble death?
And the reason that this question is relevant is because it is inherent to the biblical narrative.
The concept, "Life is death and death is life", is at the very core of Christ's passion.

Unforgiveable

The Trinity issue is extremely important for disciples of Jesus to understand. I am afraid that too many believers in Jesus’ divinity, don’t understand what exactly, they believe. It is daunting to sit down with a Muslim, who is vehemently monotheistic, and explain how One God equates to a Father, Holy Spirit, and Son. The confusion for the Muslim is usually magnified by the power of three, in the disciple of Christ.

The nature of the three individuals of God, also explains another issue for which most Christians are uncomfortable in discussing.

The fact that God can forgive ANY sin is Amazing. It is Amazing Grace, to be precise.

Christ can transform men and women in miraculous ways.

Yet, Jesus tells us in Mark 3:28-29, “I assure you that any sin can be forgiven, including blasphemy; but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. It is an eternal sin.”

Let me say it…, Nuance & Paradox of God. I am advocating a Theology of Nuance.
God can forgive any sin and blasphemy except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
There are NO “hard and fast rules” with God.
Innocence is not determined by strictly following God’s Law and guilt is not determined by “technically” breaking God’s Law (Mt 5:27-30 & Mt 12:1-14). We are disciples of a God who demands a very loose Theology of Nuance.

I want to explain how my understanding of the individual character functions for the Trinity, will shed light on the Father’s inability to forgive blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Look below at the description for how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit function. I had this in the post of March 19, 2007.

1. The Father is executive. He is the planner. He sets the vision. His will be done. He administrates the purpose. He is the Captain of the ship. He is the General of the Army.
2. The Son is the labor. He is the active. He fulfills the vision. He completes the will of the executive. He is the XO for the Captain of Ship. He is the Cavalry and Infantry and Armor of the Army.
3. The Holy Spirit is the material supply chain. He produces & provides the power. He is the materiel supply line. He delivers the fuel to the Armor. He delivers ammunition to the Infantry. He provides counsel and support to the wounded. He is the Navy Corpsman & Army Combat Field Medic.

Now let me make a point from carnal brutality and violence of war. In war, Navy Corpsman & Army Combat Field Medics, will always have insignia on their helmets and arms, indicating their role and position in the battle. They are never supposed to be targeted by combat personnel, nor are they ever supposed to be exploited for combat purposes. It is an “unforgivable” sin to target non-combatant medical personnel. It is also an “unpardonable” sin to use them, hospitals, and ambulances for combat functions. This is in our human psyche. We feel it in our bones. It makes emotional sense, even while we cannot explain it rationally.

This is the design of our Creator.

The Holy Spirit is utterly defenseless in our spiritual battle with the demons and our adversary, Satan.
Just as when the Navy Corpsman steps onto the battle field where mortars are going off just a few meters away, he does not take up a rifle, because he has a nobler calling. So long as he is in an ambulance with a bright Red Cross, he is without protection. So long as he has a bright Red Cross on his helmet and arm band, he is acting as the symbolic equivalent God’s Holy Spirit.
When you take aim on the Army Combat Field Medic, you are shooting at the symbolic representation of He, who is the “Breath of Life” in the nostrils’ of “Adam”, i.e. Humankind. Genesis 2:7

• “And the Lord God formed a man’s body from the dust of the ground and breathed into it the breath of life. And the man became a living person.”

What do you have..., if you take aim at the very “breath of life”? Your heart is beyond repair.

God bless,
DSM

Money, Money, Money; or A different interpretation of the "Rich Young Ruler."

Mt 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Is he eternally lost?

Did he die in his sins?

Many folks will tell me that this fellow is lost.
Many folks will say that Jesus has condemned all rich people.
But, I differ fundamentally with the faulty hermeneutics used to put this stake through the souls of so many people.
Look again, at the the passage about the Rich young ruler. Verse 22 says that he went away sorrowful or "sad" because he had great wealth.

Is he sad because he's rich?
This is not the typical response to having great wealth. Is it?

'John Doe wins the multi-million dollar lotto, so he goes away sad because he has excessive wealth.'
You just don't hear this.
My take on this passage is that, the rich man recognizes his deep Spiritual need. In-fact this exchange is the same in all of the synoptic gospel accounts. The man asks Jesus what "he" personally, must do to have eternal life. So, the fellow has a recognition of his need.

Consider this in the context of Mt 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." The young ruler meets this criterion by simply asking the question of Jesus.

Look further, Mt 5:4. "Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted." The young ruler meets this criterion by going away "sad". He was not sad because he was rich, but rather, because he knew that there was "one thing" that was coming between himself and God.

Jesus has good news for people who are able to recognize such a sad personal state of affairs, "They will be comforted."

Look at Mt 5:6 "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled." This young man appears to be getting a lot of good news (gospel) from Christ. The rich man clearly, has a deep hunger and thirst for righteousness, because after Jesus tells him a list of things, which he had followed "religiously" the young man didn't celebrate and hoop-it-up, but instead he recognized he was still lacking something.

This issue could be expanded further by talking about the impossibility of any rich man's salvation...on his own merits, versus any rich man's salvation on God's merits. But, I am hoping you are getting the idea by now, that this young man met Jesus' stated criteria for being blessed in Mt 5.

Okay, if you still follow me on this. And if you too have felt "sad" that you have not achieved God's level of excellence, then I am also hoping that you might recognize that your very deep and earnest desire for perfection is the exact same thing to Christ from Mt 5. If you didn't care, then there would be a problem. But, that's not the case. The only thing lacking for you, is the answer to yourself of some important questions:

1. Just How Powerful is this Jesus?
2. Is he really able to forgive anything?
3. Can he heal me, personally, for any & all faults?
4. Can He create, in me, a holy and sanctified soul? Despite my failings.

God bless,
DSM