From: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2006 #384 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk Unsubscribe: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe Archives: http://www.smoe.org/lists/joni Website: http://jonimitchell.com JMDL Digest Monday, October 16 2006 Volume 2006 : Number 384 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Hawaii quakers (njc) [] smurf knocks three times, njc ["Marianne Rizzo" ] Re: San Franciscophobia by Garrison Keillor [NJC] [Alice Brown ] an odd thing in "Laurel Canyon" the book [Em ] Re: San Franciscophobia by Garrison Keillor [NJC] [lcstanley7@aol.com] Re: San Franciscophobia by Garrison Keillor [NJC]/ now a mean God and the nature of the soul [E] Re: San Franciscophobia by Garrison Keillor [NJC] [Alice Brown ] it all comes back to Michael Paz NJC ["Maggie McNally" ] RE: voting for character njc ["Bree Mcdonough" ] Re: Mark Foley -- njc ["Lori Fye" ] Re: San Franciscophobia by Garrison Keillor [NJC] [Alice Brown ] Re: San Franciscophobia by Garrison Keillor [NJC] [LCStanley7@aol.com] Re: San Franciscophobia by Garrison Keillor [NJC] [LCStanley7@aol.com] Re: NJC Man-boy love HUGE SHIT.... [BlueForTheRoses@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:50:36 -0700 From: Subject: Hawaii quakers (njc) Hope the jmdler's in Hawaii are O.K. and have not been too badly affected by the quakes. I don't know if they are still here but I recall Rainbow on the Big Island, Dean on Kauai and a few others who used to post. Hawaii is such a beloved place for me and so many people. I have close friends there, too, who I have been trying to contact. I had to work 10 hours today but had one eye glued to the internet throughout keeping up with the reports. Those were awful big shakers! All the best to you. Kakki Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:07:24 -0400 From: "Marianne Rizzo" Subject: smurf knocks three times, njc Bob doesn't really get annoyed. . is my guess. . I imagine he loves you for it like the rest of us do. . . when you bring out the oldies. . ." I can hear the music playing. . ." thanks, spirited one. >And at the risk of annoying Muller yet again, I just have to drag out >another moldy oldy. My fault, my fault, my most grievous fault, Musik >Meister! (trois fois) >ARTIST: Tony Orlando and Dawn >TITLE: Knock Three Times _________________________________________________________________ Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and morethen map the best route! http://local.live.com?FORM=MGA001 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 05:29:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Alice Brown Subject: Re: San Franciscophobia by Garrison Keillor [NJC] Hi Laura & all Joni Buds, You're right, pseudosexual was not a good choice of words. I chose it on the fly because FOR ME adding a sexual element among the same sex is energizing but not really sexual for me. I'll try to be more accurate: It's sexual in nature and fun but I'm not "really" attracted to the same sex; wouldn't actually want to have sex with a woman. Your second point, couldn't religion be natural so why focus on the bad in it? This is my opinion here, it's not based on heavy scientific study, but my general understanding of the animal kingdom and psychology: I don't believe that religion per se is natural, what is natural is fear and a lack of knowlwdge and understanding, and fearing what we do not understand. Early humans did not understand and feared things that were "bigger" than themselves; the weather and natural disasters, biological "disasters" like death, infertility, insanity, sickness & physical pain, blindness, paralysis, etc. They recognized correctly that these powers were bigger than themselves and were beyond their control (although knowledge would help us to "control" some of these eventually). The problem came when they anthropomorphized these "bigger powers," and so tried to come up with rules to please these gods, like: I shouldn't lie, cheat, steal, masturbate, be selfish, be violent, get drunk, be arrogant, etc. When people behaved in ways that tried to avoid these things, life went a little better for them, although now they lived in more fear because they didn't know "all about the gods" and lots of painful things still happened, and they didn't know how else to please the gods. Now they feared the things and the god(s), AND they blamed humanity's "sin nature" for all of it. They also began to condemn others who didn't believe out of fear that everyone should believe and act in ways to please the gods so that the painful things would go away completely. And on and on and on and on. Humans now posess the technology, knowledge and psychological tools to come out of the ignorance, fear, superstitions, and "humans are evil" mentality and behaviors. I have a somewhat unique perspective because when I was an evangelical I studied the bible and really tried to live it out to the very best of my ability. I know the bible very well, and if you take it literally and try you're best to "follow it" you will see the glaring narcissism, violence, vengeful, tyrannical nature of god, and how "god's perfect plan and laws for "helping" the humans that "he loves so much" just leads to more pain, bigotry, male dominance and cruelty, and empty promises. As a christian counselor I've worked with hundreds of sincere evangelicals who have suffered from the inhumane laws and prayed for years to no avail. Examples: staying married to an abusive spouse because he wasn't "unfaithful", the only out for bible believing folk. They and their children would suffer horribly year after year and pray for god to change their husbands, and pray for endurance and faithfulness. Things only got worse, but, of course they blamed themselves for their selfishness and lack of faith. One clear example in my life was that I always struggled horribly with the "knowledge" that most humans would be totured forever in the "lake of fire." I have a big heart and I couldn't bear that, I couldn't celebrate how "the church" would experience bliss for ever, including me, givien that most people would be in agony somewhere, forever & ever & ever & ever. I could not reconcile this with a loving god. I told myself that god was perfect & loving & merciful & if I disagreed with him then I must be wrong (due to my sin nature). I believed completely, gave him everything;: time, career, money, energy, worship & love. But I always felt a little holding back in my heart when worshipping god and that freaked me out. I came to realize that it was the eternal torture of most humans issue. So I prayed night and day that god would help me to worship him with my whole heart, and that he would help me to trust that he was loving and that the eternal torture aspect was part of his perfect plan for ultimate good. THAT WAS MY BIGGEST PRAYER FOR 13 YEARS. And it only got worse and more and more agonizing. This confused me because jesus said that if we ask anything in his name(will) we shall have it. Well I couldn't imagine a prayer that was anymore in his will, "help me to love you with my whole heart and trust in your goodness completely." So why wasn't this humble, sincere prayer answered; year after year after year?? The cognitive dissonance got so bad that it tore me apart and sent me into a disabling depression and physical problems. My mind and heart were unable to bear it anymore. I began researching the evidence for debunking the bible. I found so much evidence that the bible is not inerrant, and in fact, down right wrong and had so many contradictions that I finally came to realize that it was a man-made document that was full of fear, bigiory, and and lack of respect and love for humanity. As I came out of my fear and ignorance I began to see clearly that the bible is not only not true, but its teachings of the wickedness and inferiority of humans, along with the illogical, irrational teachings, and the "us vs. them" mentality was making the whole planet mentally ill and way more destructive than they would be "naturally." It causes so much guilt, fear, suffering, and assinine behaviors that I can't let it be and just "focus on the 'good' parts." I also know by experience that if you want people to be "good" (behave constructively), the best road to this is helping them to heal from childhood wounds and to come to know, accept and appreciate themselves as they are. People who are healthy and loved, naturally choose constructive behaviors most of the time, even though they may enjoy destructive fantasies, T.V./movies/video games. They allow themselves to have destructive thoughts and feelings and to even enjoy them in healthy ways, but they love themselves too much to want to suffer the consequenses of acting out their destructive side. But if you trying to make people feel guilty and ashamed for their destructive thoughts and feelings, you cause fragmentation in the human psyche, which leads to mental illness and destructive behaviors against themselves and others. If people want to have faith that there is life after death, and that everyone will go to a better place, I see no real harm in that. Well, a little harm: I think even this lovely theology can cause people to not live fully in THIS LIFE; the one we know we have for sure. If my life is unhappy, I have to do my best to change it, because this is the only life I've got, after this it's over. This causes me to appreciate every day and live fully, not out of fear, but out of love and wonder. I hope that you can see where I'm coming from. Sincerely, With Love, Alice LCStanley7@aol.com wrote: Go ask Alice wrote: I love the added pseudosexual element that gay folks bring to social dynamics. And: But I do love and respect people of faith, I just hate the major religions, I don't hate the people. I'm devoted to the love and respect of humanity. Hi Ali, What do you mean by pseudosexual? I don't see homosexuality as having anything to do with false sex. No comprendo. And, could it be that religion is a facet of humanity? Just another variety in the colorful world of the wonderland? So why focus on the bad in it? Love, Laura ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 06:14:58 -0700 (PDT) From: J Kendel Johnson Subject: Re: Holy Sheet, Batman! I think we're talking about an alternative lyric Joni sings on Miles of Aisles. J np: Sara Hickman, Comfort's Sigh arkay o'malley wrote: i always thought the line was " the wind is in from africa and last i couldnt sleep..." >From: J Kendel Johnson >Reply-To: J Kendel Johnson >To: Cassy , Ruth Davis , >joni@smoe.org >Subject: Re: Holy Sheet, Batman! >Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:10:29 -0700 (PDT) > >Cassy wrote: From: "Ruth Davis" > ><<< The wind is in from Africa. >The sea is full of _______. > >I think she says "The sea is full of sheep" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 06:41:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Em Subject: an odd thing in "Laurel Canyon" the book I'm really enjoying this book. Its been really fascinating to hear about how Joni arrived there and how taken everyone was with her at the time. I can only imagine in a community of songwriters, to suddenly hear Joni. Must have blown them away. But what I didn't understand was the author's interpretation of the feeling behind the song "LOTC". He seems to feel she is being critical of the canyon ladies or somehow poking fun at them. I've never felt that way. I always found it a rather affectionate look at what was around her - just another part of the surroundings. He quotes that line "Trina wears her wampum beads", as if saying that is somehow making fun of her? hmmm...I don't get it. I wish I had the book with me hear at work; I'd copy the whole passage. Was wondering if anyone else who's read this also found that odd, or off the mark? But its really a fun read. I like the doses of reality. Like he says that Graham and Joni's place, besides the way it was fixed up/furnished was basically a "hunting shack". Shows what a couple of cats and a nice vase can do! :) Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:18:08 -0400 From: lcstanley7@aol.com Subject: Re: San Franciscophobia by Garrison Keillor [NJC] Alice wrote: Humans now posess the technology, knowledge and psychological tools to come out of the ignorance, fear, superstitions, and "humans are evil" mentality and behaviors. Hi Alice, Your experience with evangelical christianity sounds terrible. Nice job in explaining it. I agree that any religion which bases it's precepts on the notion that "humans are evil" and keeps people in ignorance, fear, and superstition is a waste of time to follow. I've always been fascinated by the differing analogies to the human soul in christian circles. The biggest contrast I've found is between the protestant and catholic analogies. The classical protestant view is that there is nothing good about the soul until God saves it, and the analogy of the human soul is that it is like a pile of dung which is covered over by white snow when one is saved. The classic catholic view is the soul is good as God has created it, and the analogy of the human soul is that it is like an image in a mirror where the goodness cannot be clearly seen as if one looks into a mirror covered with fog which progressively diminishes as we go through the process of salvation. I prefer the catholic view point. I don't see any religion as perfect because there is always the possibility of miscommunication and lack of understanding of the truth. I do believe perfect love can be had and is Christ's goal regardless of how people might miss the point. So, I remain christian. I recently heard of a comparative study of many religions that was done by a person who doesn't subscribe to any of them. In this person's objective view point the conclusion was that christianity is the most peaceful. Love, Laura ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:52:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Em Subject: Re: San Franciscophobia by Garrison Keillor [NJC]/ now a mean God and the nature of the soul - --- lcstanley7@aol.com wrote: > The classic catholic view is the soul is good as God has created it, > and the analogy of the human soul is that it is like an image in a > mirror where the goodness cannot be clearly seen as if one looks into > a mirror covered with fog which progressively diminishes as we go > through the process of salvation. I prefer the catholic view point. Too bad that in practice they so often seem to forget that. At least that's been my experience, and I think that of many others. Thinking of nuns who seemed to think every child evil, much in the same sense as the protestant headmaster I knew who had murals of children being beheaded on his office walls, and who walked around tapping a cane against his legs. As long as the Old Testament comes into play, children (and adults) are there to be beaten into submission. Excepting of course naturally placid children. I recently had to typeset Psalm 106 at work. It almost killed me. It depressed me to no end. Made god sound like a real arrogant SOB. I kept thinking WHY would someone want to put this on their wall? It keeps the humans as sniveling children, just happy to not be smitten by that mighty hand. Or smitten only lightly, not with a 2 by 4 across the back like some evil and abusive daddy. And it works, to an extent, theis beating into submission. Em ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 08:03:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Alice Brown Subject: Re: San Franciscophobia by Garrison Keillor [NJC] Dear Laura, I liked your explaination of the Catholic view, but, in the end, it still comes down to: we need salvation, to be saved from the wrath of god by a process of classes, masses, works, confession, communion, tithes etc. Humans are still evil and need to be saved from it, saved from hell/eternal torment. I say, humans are good and lovable and valuable the way they are. There is no evil, and there is no hell. Just wounded people who need the opportunity to become healthy, happy, and loved. The "peaceful christian" perception that the nonbeliever you mentioned assumes, is off. When I was a part of "the church" I had never seen so many hurting, hypocritical, dysfunctional people in my life. As for catholicism, guilt and catholicism seem to almost be synonomous these days. I have heard probably hundreds of catholics remark or joke about their guilt by giving "credit" for this to their catholic beliefs/upbringing. So, I'm glad if your faith gives you peace, but I can't agree that this is the case in general, in fact the opposite seems to be true. Love, Alice lcstanley7@aol.com wrote: Alice wrote: Humans now posess the technology, knowledge and psychological tools to come out of the ignorance, fear, superstitions, and "humans are evil" mentality and behaviors. Hi Alice, Your experience with evangelical christianity sounds terrible. Nice job in explaining it. I agree that any religion which bases it's precepts on the notion that "humans are evil" and keeps people in ignorance, fear, and superstition is a waste of time to follow. I've always been fascinated by the differing analogies to the human soul in christian circles. The biggest contrast I've found is between the protestant and catholic analogies. The classical protestant view is that there is nothing good about the soul until God saves it, and the analogy of the human soul is that it is like a pile of dung which is covered over by white snow when one is saved. The classic catholic view is the soul is good as God has created it, and the analogy of the human soul is that it is like an image in a mirror where the goodness cannot be clearly seen as if one looks into a mirror covered with fog which progressively diminishes as we go through the process of salvation. I prefer the catholic view point. I don't see any religion as perfect because there is always the possibility of miscommunication and lack of understanding of the truth. I do believe perfect love can be had and is Christ's goal regardless of how people might miss the point. So, I remain christian. I recently heard of a comparative study of many religions that was done by a person who doesn't subscribe to any of them. In this person's objective view point the conclusion was that christianity is the most peaceful. Love, Laura - --------------------------------- Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:23:03 -0400 From: "Marianne Rizzo" Subject: Mark Foley -- njc blue foolery From: Smurf Subject: Mark Foley -- njc I am doing my best to stay out of any and all political discussions because they cause so much ill will on the list, but this latest one is driving me nuts. For days now people have been discussing Tom Foley, whoever he is. The page-stalking, former Florida representitive is named Mark Foley. - - --Smurf - ------------------------------ From: Victor Johnson Subject: Re: Mark Foley -- njc Sounds like a bit of tom-foolery. Victor ;) _________________________________________________________________ Try Search Survival Kits: Fix up your home and better handle your cash with Live Search! http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmtagline ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:32:58 -0400 From: "Maggie McNally" Subject: it all comes back to Michael Paz NJC Am I the last one in this world to realize that sooner or later it all comes back to Paz? Last night my organization - the Celebrity Series of Boston - opened its 68th season with Preservation Hall Jazz Band. As it was the opening night, my job was to create a fundraiser event around their performance at Symphony Hall. We decided to add an additional beneficiary to the event in recognition of our need to play a small role in "doing something" about the on-going devastation of NOLA and of the tremendous loss that the musical community sustained. Pres Hall's Ben Jaffe had started the New Orleans Musicians Hurricane Relief Fund, so that's the cause we chose to include in the evening's fundraising efforts. Wanting to create something special that had a feeling of authenticity I called on Paz for advice and referrals. His generous spirit guided and sustained me again and again. Plus, as you all know, he's just plain so much fun to talk to! I had to do a lot of calling around to put together a raffle to try to add to the evening's net, and also decided to buy other things from NOLA vendors. He gave me ideas and tips, pointed me in the right direction, and then gave me names and phone numbers for places and people for whom mentioning his name elicited kind words and got me to yes more often than not. When I met Ben Jaffe at the hall last night and mentioned Paz to him he said, "who doesn't love Mike..."and went on to praise him and his skills. And the amazing thing is that Michael Paz is just one of the gems I've gotten to know through this list. Wow. Paz - Clint was as great as you promised. He was exhausted and didn't get to the party after, so I'm sorry to say I didn't get to meet him. Ben came, as did most of the other musicians, and Ben joined in with my fabulous musicians at one point. Folks, if you get a chance to see/hear Jeremy Lyons (sometimes playing out as the Deltabilly Boys or the Deltabilly Duo) you'll be glad you did. Jeremy plays in the Boston area - where he relocated post-Katrina - lots. He deserves the widest possible audience. OK, back to lurking. You all have a nice day, you hear? Maggie ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:49:06 -0400 From: lcstanley7@aol.com Subject: Re: San Franciscophobia by Garrison Keillor [NJC] Alice wrote: I liked your explaination of the Catholic view, but, in the end, it still comes down to: we need salvation, to be saved from the wrath of god by a process of classes, masses, works, confession, communion, tithes etc. Hi Alice, Your evangelical training about catholicism might be coming through here. And if you trace the line of evangelicals far enough backed, their line of theology originated from dissatisfied catholics who either missed the point or were offended by concrete actions of sick people including some very twisted church leaders unfortunately. Your description of salvation in the catholic church is not what I have come to know through my experience with catholicism. In my understanding of catholic doctrine, the only way a person is unable to experience the love of God which is basically the definition of "hell" is if they reject God's love. Catholic salvation consists of an invitation to love again as Jesus taught. Mass, confession, and communion are ways we can be reconciled with God as a child accepts the arms of a loving father. Works and tithes are ways we can benefit mankind and become family. You also wrote: The "peaceful christian" perception that the nonbeliever you mentioned assumes, is off. When I was a part of "the church" I had never seen so many hurting, hypocritical, dysfunctional people in my life. It usually isn't wise to take one's personal and limited experiences as being more informed than a professional who has used the scientific method to obtain data in a well thought out and researched study. As for hurting, hypocritical and dysfunctional people, that was who Jesus encouraged to join the church. He made it pretty clear that the church wasn't a place for people who weren't sick with these afflictions. You also wrote: As for catholicism, guilt and catholicism seem to almost be synonomous these days. I have heard probably hundreds of catholics remark or joke about their guilt by giving "credit" for this to their catholic beliefs/upbringing. Yes, I've heard this too. Guilt and blame seem to go hand-in-hand. Yes, there are some sick people doing ministry in the church, people who have guilt themselves. But, what could one expect from hurting, hypocritical, dysfunctional people who make up a church? It is the same way in AA. It is progress not perfection. And there is lots of joy and fun to be had in the catholic church when one gets over expecting the church to be perfect and gets into the love that is definitely there. Love, Laura ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:20:36 -0400 From: "Jenny Goodspeed" Subject: Re: an odd thing in "Laurel Canyon" the book Wow. I never heard LOTC in a mocking way. I think of it as you do Em. An affectionate snapshot. I tried reading the lyrics with a "poking fun" frame of mind and they can work that way until you get to the last verse. I just don't see how a person would get 'criticizing' out of that. Jenny >>Trina takes her paints and her threads And she weaves a pattern all her own Annie bakes her cakes and her breads And she gathers flowers for her home For her home she gathers flowers And Estrella dear companion Colors up the sunshine hours Pouring music down the canyon Coloring the sunshine hours They are the ladies of the canyon On 10/16/06, Em wrote: > > But what I didn't understand was the author's interpretation of the > feeling behind the song "LOTC". > He seems to feel she is being critical of the canyon ladies or somehow > poking fun at them. > I've never felt that way. I always found it a rather affectionate look > at what was around her - just another part of the surroundings. > He quotes that line "Trina wears her wampum beads", as if saying that > is somehow making fun of her? > hmmm...I don't get it. > I wish I had the book with me hear at work; I'd copy the whole passage. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:50:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lama \(Jim L*Hommedieu\)" Subject: Re: Joni's birthday Rachael, Since Les doesn't always answer his email, I'll answer this one. No, "Our Lady Of Duality" doesn't come from one of Joni's songs. It comes from one of Joni's fans. Long ago, we were discussing the split messages in so many of her songs and I coined the phrase. I never pass up an opportunity to remind everyone about it either. :) Jim L. Dayton, OH Rachael Byrnes (Singer/ Songwriter) said, >You refer to Joni as "Our Lady of Duality" is that in reference to one of her songs? I'm curious!! I have a song called Behind the Mask, where I talk about how spiritually I follow "a rich tapestry, of catch 22s and duality"> ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:58:43 -0400 From: "Bree Mcdonough" Subject: RE: voting for character njc No...we don't agree about the debates...but I do agree ..you are always very civil and decent in your posts on the JMDL. Bree > >Bush did pretty good against Gore and Kerry in those debates..he wasn't >expected to..well ..because they are brilliant ..and he's so dumb. < >I thought he did terrible! See, we really have different perspectives don't >we? > >No hard feelings I hope...I enjoy you and your take on things.< > >Of course not. It has been a very civilized discussion I think. I am >always fascinated in how you come to your conclusions since they are so >opposed to mine. > >Kate ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:48:09 +0200 From: "Laurent Olszer" Subject: Band Names, njc Smurf wrote: ZZ TOP - taken from the name of a Texas Blues man ZZ Hill. Though a rumor is that they got their name by combining Zig Zag and Top, two well known brands of "cigarette" rolling papers. Well there was a < saga > show on french radio and the drummer Frank Beard finally spilled the beans on its name. ZZ is pronounced zizi in French, which is cute slang for "weany". So the name means: top penis or top weany. It sure sounds more exciting that rolling paper, doesn't it? Laurent ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:55:51 -0700 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: Mark Foley -- njc Smurf corrected: > For days now people have been discussing Tom Foley, > whoever he is. The page-stalking, former Florida > representitive is named Mark Foley. Thanks, Smurf. That misnomer may have started with me. Apologies to Tom Foley, whoever he is. : ) Lori ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:54:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Alice Brown Subject: Re: San Franciscophobia by Garrison Keillor [NJC] Dear Laura, I appreciated your email. You're right that I don't have personal experience with catholisism, so I may have some wrong assumptions. I have a couple of questions. Is the religion basically accept god's love and you won't go to hell? Are you saying that hell is an eternal existence without the presence of god's love? If so, do people suffer there eternally? Can you just accept god's love in your heart, or do you have to combine that with mass, confession and communion? If you have to include mass, confession and communion: how often? When I've asked catholics if they are going to heaven, the answer has always been the same to date: I hope so! I have a hard time accepting the "love" of a being who may send me to hell. Also, it seems like the more "advanced" (healthy) a person is, the more they are able to love without demanding love or works in return. So why would the "most advanced being in the universe" require anything from us in order to not condemn us to hell? Also, I have attached an essay that I wrote about what things would look like if there was a god who was loving and wanted a relationship with us. I look forward to your feedback. Love, Alice lcstanley7@aol.com wrote: Alice wrote: I liked your explaination of the Catholic view, but, in the end, it still comes down to: we need salvation, to be saved from the wrath of god by a process of classes, masses, works, confession, communion, tithes etc. Hi Alice, Your evangelical training about catholicism might be coming through here. And if you trace the line of evangelicals far enough backed, their line of theology originated from dissatisfied catholics who either missed the point or were offended by concrete actions of sick people including some very twisted church leaders unfortunately. Your description of salvation in the catholic church is not what I have come to know through my experience with catholicism. In my understanding of catholic doctrine, the only way a person is unable to experience the love of God which is basically the definition of "hell" is if they reject God's love. Catholic salvation consists of an invitation to love again as Jesus taught. Mass, confession, and communion are ways we can be reconciled with God as a child accepts the arms of a loving father. Works and tithes are ways we can benefit mankind and become family. You also wrote: The "peaceful christian" perception that the nonbeliever you mentioned assumes, is off. When I was a part of "the church" I had never seen so many hurting, hypocritical, dysfunctional people in my life. It usually isn't wise to take one's personal and limited experiences as being more informed than a professional who has used the scientific method to obtain data in a well thought out and researched study. As for hurting, hypocritical and dysfunctional people, that was who Jesus encouraged to join the church. He made it pretty clear that the church wasn't a place for people who weren't sick with these afflictions. You also wrote: As for catholicism, guilt and catholicism seem to almost be synonomous these days. I have heard probably hundreds of catholics remark or joke about their guilt by giving "credit" for this to their catholic beliefs/upbringing. Yes, I've heard this too. Guilt and blame seem to go hand-in-hand. Yes, there are some sick people doing ministry in the church, people who have guilt themselves. But, what could one expect from hurting, hypocritical, dysfunctional people who make up a church? It is the same way in AA. It is progress not perfection. And there is lots of joy and fun to be had in the catholic church when one gets over expecting the church to be perfect and gets into the love that is definitely there. Love, Laura - --------------------------------- Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. IF THERE WAS A LOVING GOD I have been contemplating what life would be like and look like if there was a loving God. I have used my understanding of the psychological, emotional, physical and relational needs of human beings and my understanding of what it means to love and be loved, to construct a reality that would be created by a loving God. If there was a loving God who created men and women, surely this being would be androgenous, because men and women would be a reflection of this creator. I would not want to refer to this being as "it", so I have developed some androgenous pronouns for this discussion. He/She = See. Her/Him = Shim (rhymes with him). His/Hers = Shis (rhymes with his). If there was a loving God who was the creator and sustainer of the universe, wanted Shis creatures to be good and loving, and was interested in having a loving relationship with Shis creatures, I imagine that things might look like this: God would be physically apparent as a person because See would know that humans find it hard to believe in and relate to a being who is intangible. God would create men and women equal, with equal value and equal rights. All peoples, all races would have equal value and power. God would teach us about the beauty of love and goodness, and encourage us to lead lives that reflect these qualities, telling us that this will make our lives happier, healthier and more fulfilling. God would tell us that See loves us and wants a relationship with us, and then be available to each of us for whatever time it takes to develop and maintain a close, loving relationship. God would tell us that we are free to accept and love Shim and that we are free to reject and/or ignore Shim. There would be no penalty for rejecting Shim besides the natural consequences of missing out on a wonderful relationship with an extraordinary being. God would limit the freedom of people who were violent and destructive. They would be prevented from hurting others, but also loved, helped, and given the opportunity to grow and heal so that they could have complete freedom again. We have learned that the way to help people to become good is to provide them with love, education, psychotherapy, positive role models and appropriate consistent consequences. (You cannot make people good through fear, abuse and conditional love. [This has been shown clearly by the way people parent, and how their children turn out.] You can sometimes make people more obedient this way, but not genuinely good, loving and free. Why doesn't the god of the bible know this? Are today's psychologists and parents wiser than he is?) God would help us to grow in a desire to love by example i.e. by Shis own nurturing and encouraging behaviors toward us, and by instituting fair and meaningful consequences for destructive/unhealthy behaviors. When we received consequences, we would also be reminded that we are loved, and See would spend time talking with us about who we are, what we want, need and feel, and offering help in areas where we are confused, struggling or in pain. God would give every person the health, intelligence, wisdom and care that they need in order to make good decisions and develop loving relationships. We would all be equal in health, beauty, strength, intelligence, and talent but we would all be unique in our appearance, style, preferences, dreams and goals. God would be so beautiful, kind, compassionate, merciful, intelligent, creative, fun and interesting that people would be utterly attracted to Shim. Love and even worship would come naturally and be a wonderful experience for Shim and for us. God would teach us how the universe works and would help us to explore it. God would also encourage us to explore and appreciate ourselves, and to grow in love, knowledge and understanding, and would help us to do so. This God would have created a world with no death or illness. We would all be vegetarians. Humans and animals would live forever with one another in harmony, love and peace. The earth would never get too crowded because there would be many planets within reach that would all be suitable, unique and wonderful for humans and animals. We would be taught and encouraged to treat the earth with care and respect, and to continue to explore the galaxy to find other worlds to inhabit. God would provide more than enough food and shelter for everyone. The climate would be suitable for optimum health and enjoyment of our planet. People would help each other out of love and enjoyment, not out of a sense of duty. God would help and encourage every person to be true to who they are, and to share the gift of themselves with others. God would prevent natural disasters such as floods, draughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, mudslides, tidal waves, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and comets/asteroids colliding with the earth and all of the planets that are inhabited. God would promise to keep us safe, well and cared for in every way, and would keep this promise at all times, for this is the way of love. As I write this, I know that it would be impossible for me not to love this God. I wish that this God existed, but this God does not exist. If there really was a loving, all-powerful God who wanted to create a universe of life and love, then that God could have done it. The universe would resemble what I have described (I think many of us might agree with this based on what people like, love, want and need). If I, a mere human can conceive of a universe and a plan for creating good and loving people who freely love God, then why couldn't god? Bible believers say that its because people had to be given a choice to sin or they wouldn't be free. Once one person sinned we all became corrupt. As corrupt beings, we needed all the fear, pain, killing and blood in order to have the chance to "freely choose" to love god. (Of course if they don't "freely" choose to love him they will be tortured eternally. The bible says that most people will not choose to love him so most people will be eternally tormented.) Wouldn't most people (if not all) choose to love God freely if See was the loving God I have described? Can anyone truly love someone who threatens them, causes them to live in fear, and sends their loved ones to a place of eternal torment? I know that I cannot. I have spoken to many people about their true feelings about god. In my experience, few people actually love god in a passionate, heartfelt way. Most "love" god with their minds because they have been taught that they should, and others because they are afraid not to. These people delude themselves into believing that the god of the bible really is good and loving in the face of all of the evidence to the contrary. I was an evangelical christian for 13 years. I totally devoted my life to god and biblical principles. In the end, I was depressed, confused, and terribly disillusioned. The "wisdom," and promises in the bible proved to be false. Eventually I was able to see that the bible is full of contradictions, hypocrisy, and a god who is a cruel, hateful, narcissistic tyrant. As I came to the realization that I was no longer a christian, I was still coping with the fear that I might be wrong and that I (and most of my loved ones) was going to hell. Now I understand why this fear was so hard to shake. It was simply that so many people around me believed in hell. It is a part of my country's mythology. Also, it is a VERY POWERFUL THREAT. Suffering without end forever and ever with no hope of escape is as awful as it gets. Those two aspects of hell kept it alive and well in my brain. Thankfully, I now understand that it is nothing more than a cruel myth designed to frighten people into submission. I am not going to hell. You are not going to hell. No one is going to hell. I am free. A loving God does not exist. Fortunately, neither does the god of the bible. We are all free. Be free. Be good. If you can't love and be good, get some help. If you know someone who needs help, help them if you can. Don't live for an unknown eternity, live for now. Enjoy each day as if it were your last. Make the world a better place for your children and their children. Live well. Live life to the full. We may not be loved by a god, but we are alive in a universe that is wondrous and filled with people who love. Love them. Accept their love. Help those who do not know how to love. Love. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:17:19 -0700 From: "Lori Fye" Subject: Re: NJC Man-boy love HUGE SHIT.... Benedicte wrote: > I'd like to agree, but it sometimes seems to me that this subject is better > left to the men and boys, at least as long as there is so much about male > sexuality that women cannot accept. I have very few, if any, issues about male sexuality. In fact, the idea of two men together, as well as some male-on-male erotic movies (okay, porn), is appealing to me. However, to leave the subject of "man-boy love" to the men and boys is to play right into what those particular men want. "It's a NAMBLA thing; you wouldn't understand." I repeat: there has to be a line that adults don't cross. It's not so very different from the line you don't cross when you commit yourself to another human being in love relationship. Most (not all, but most) people choose to limit sharing their bodies with just that one other person for the duration of the relationship. I'm personally not sure how honest that is to oneself; I'm not even sure human beings are really made to be monogamous; but living that way certainly makes most people's lives easier. We're all tempted by lots of things, and we all have to make choices as to what temptations to give into, and what to turn away from. It all comes down to consequences: if I choose to have sex with a child, what are the consequences? For the child? For me? Do I care? Decent people do care, particularly about the consequences for the child. And you can argue all day that a 15-year old is not a child, but how about if you think of your OWN child at that age (or younger, or older), and consider how you would feel if an adult had sex with him (or her)? I realize that some people don't have this kind of conscience, that many men think with the heads of their dicks (and some women think with their clits). You all know how I feel about people who are so self-absorbed or wrong-wired that they can't or won't differentiate, and can't or won't put the welfare of a child first. My simple solution is unpopular here, but it's always the same: a bullet. Lori Santa Rosa, CA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:17:58 EDT From: LCStanley7@aol.com Subject: Re: San Franciscophobia by Garrison Keillor [NJC] In a message dated 10/16/2006 2:54:55 P.M. Central Standard Time, alicejbrown@sbcglobal.net writes: Is the religion basically accept god's love and you won't go to hell? Are you saying that hell is an eternal existence without the presence of god's love? If so, do people suffer there eternally? Can you just accept god's love in your heart, or do you have to combine that with mass, confession and communion? If you have to include mass, confession and communion: how often? Hi Alice, Yes, Catholicism is at it's core about accepting God's love. It teaches that God doesn't force love on anybody... it is our choice to receive God's love or not. God's love sustains our being, but we don't have to give God credit nor ask for it in order for God to give to us. God is all about giving unconditionally. We are not limited in how we are to pray, and we can pray for specifics or not. The more we come to know God and be like him, the easier it is to pray and prayers begin to seem to work in miraculous but really in very ordinary ways. There are certain laws we are created by that we need to respect or we suffer the consequences, like regardless of what I think of brick walls, if I run into one, it will hurt me. The purpose of the church is to be a means for people not to get hurt and to know and enjoy God's love. Catholicism is set up like a family. God is acts as both a father and often uses the church in this capacity. At best the church takes care of us as nurturing parents would. It doesn't always work out that way unfortunately because people are not perfect, but that is how Jesus structured it. As for eternal existence, we are living that now, but we can't see it clearly because of the fog on the mirror. St. Therese of Liseaux called it the Eternal Today. With God all things are possible and nobody can know for sure what is beyond the grave, but we do know we have some kind of spiritual intuition about that now. Catholics say, "I hope so," because they are humble enough not to play God. In the end three things last, faith hope and love, and the greatest is love because love is God. Faith and hope are gifts we enjoy in our humanity now, humanity which we believe is both spiritual and material in substance at present and will be still at some capacity beyond our understanding in the beyond. As for mass, communion, and confession, there are concrete suggestions as to when to go to these, but these guidelines have changed over the years.... just like the celibate versus the married status of priests which is something that could very well change in the future along with other aspects of what we know as catholic structure These things are important, but they are not god. Catholics don't believe you have to be catholic nor do "catholic" things nor be a christian to be "saved." It is all God's gift, and God gives as God pleases not as we might have it. Love, Laura ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:19:49 EDT From: LCStanley7@aol.com Subject: Re: San Franciscophobia by Garrison Keillor [NJC] In a message dated 10/16/2006 4:17:58 P.M. Central Standard Time, LCStanley7 writes: God is acts as both a father and a mother (left that out in the rush I'm in to take my son to drum lessons) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:22:49 EDT From: BlueForTheRoses@aol.com Subject: Re: NJC Man-boy love HUGE SHIT.... In a message dated 10/16/2006 4:23:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lrfye58@gmail.com writes: I have very few, if any, issues about male sexuality. In fact, the idea of two men together, as well as some male-on-male erotic movies (okay, porn), is appealing to me. However, to leave the subject of "man-boy love" to the men and boys is to play right into what those particular men want. "It's a NAMBLA thing; you wouldn't understand." The only thing I'd like to insert here is that one doesn't even have to always be guilty to be considered a "child molester." I can think of a case from years ago when I was a child myself (I am now 30) in which a man and woman were accused by various children in their daycare, of molesting said children. They lost EVERYTHING they had...EVERYTHING. They both went to prison and their lives were ruined. They lived through hell, and guess what? The kids had been lying. YES, it was found out later the kids lied....So the story about "Kids don't lie about being sexually abused," is just not a true statement anymore, b/c yes sometimes they do lie. And by the way, these people were not given their business back, nor even their peace of mind. No one said, "Sorry" to them. And, let's also not forget that Americans are wrong in their asertion that the majority of child molesters are gay men. Hate to tell you folks, but the majority of child molesters are straight identified men, whether you all like it or not. Just look at the documented cases of child molestation. Now, having said that, I do agree with your last statement, sort of. I think that our laws in this counrty are too damned lenient for a variety of things. Criminals have more rights than the victims, and I count myself as one of those who is sick to death of it. However, I also realize that certain things evoke such an emotional response from our society that it doesn't even matter whether the person is guilty or not...and one of those things is child molestation. Let's not forget those two day care owners, and people like them, who are considered guilty and may not always be so...Caution, is all I urge. Rick ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2006 #384 ***************************** ------- Post messages to the list by clicking here: mailto:joni@smoe.org Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe -------