great song of Altruism, moral realism

by Barry McGuire https://youtu.be/bajO8CYnQ-Q?si=wAqE0jP8i-lhKhc4

Danger of the Cliché, “to love”

Christians for many centuries, over and over, have stated, "God is love." Most famously, St. Augustine said, "Love God and do as you like." All this sounds so good, so pious, so wonderful,
but, tragically, like so many philosophical and moral assertions, the devil is in the details:-(--
not the God of Jesus.

The same St. Augustine of the famous "love" quote supported the persecution of other Christians, torture, killing, etc.
Augustine abandoned his common-law wife of 10 years, with plans to marry an aristocratic Roman lady instead.

From 300 A.D down through hundreds of years of cruelty, abuse, intolerance, injustice, and slaughter to the present, 2025, Christian denominations in the name of "love" have committed horrific actions.

Millions of humans have been slaughtered, burned, hanged, shot, bombed, and drowned--all in the name of Jesus and this religious ideal of Christian "love." A Roman Catholic leader. Bernard of Clairvaux, often called the apostle of love called forth the 2nd Crusade!

A more recent American case is that of devout Christian soldier Stonewall Jackson who ordered the death of many thousands during the American Civil War. And the chaplain of his army, the famous R. L. Dabney, not only strongly supported this ‘Christian’ war, but American slavery, even publishing a study after the Civil War defending enslavement!

They gave all thanks to Jesus Christ and God for their killing successes, and yet at the same time, emphasized the importance of love to God and others. Read the excellent and powerful biography, Stonewall Jackson: Portrait of a Soldier by John Bowers.

In a secular sense, General Jackson was a great war general! And what a devout believer and how personable and kind to those of his own kin and group.

But what a ruthless killer of others, and in his killing, he gave all the praise for his winning battles to the Christian God! He often prayed, worshiped, and read his Bible in the midst of lethal fighting!

Not that Christianity has a corner on these strange demonstrations of "love." When I lived in the Middle East, I visited a Palaestinian restaurant. On the wall was a sign which listed all the characteristics of love in Islam.

Yet, then (and in the past and now)multi-millions of Muslims quote the Qur'an and the Hadith to justify slaughtering enemy civilians.

“So it goes.”
(quoting the satirist, Kurtr Vonnegut).

And check out secular history. Humanists who reject religion for all its horrors, also, often define "love" as a worthy human goal, yet their actions are contrary to love, too.

Here’s a minor example of how “empty bucket” the word “love” is. Back during my university days (late 60's), Allen Ginsberg and Peter Orlavsky came to the University of Nebraska to do a poetry reading. Allen kept emphasizing that "love" is the answer to the world's problems.

I, a naive, college student from a small village in southeast Nebraska was impressed,
but an older student and former beatnik told me, "Don't to be deceived."

Later I learned how deceptive these new age leaders' talk of "love" was. One of the young girls in our college group was, allegedly, left pregnant and alone by Orlavsky who moved on with Ginsberg to their next poetry readings.

Young men of other worldviews tried to persuade us that a man could have multiple relationships with women and it was "love."
Forget all the tragic results of these "love" affairs.

And since then, all manner of distortions continue to be put forth as "loving" up to 2025.
Thinkers have even claimed the intentional carpet bomb killing of hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians, including children, fire fighters, doctors, etc. is an action of love and justice!

And more and more, acts of euthanasia, abortion, lust, etc. are said to be expressions of love!
Indeed, the devil is in the details. Evil hogs them.

Why is it God always gets left holding the bag of evil?

Enough of the very bad news!

What is the nature of true caring--the kind that doesn't result in hell on earth?

The great Vietnamese Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh gives some very good clear examples if you wish a definition which isn't centered in the New Testament. However, since I am a Friend of Jesus, that is where I find my understanding of what love is.

Check out Luke 10:27. Jesus said, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

Well, the problem is still in the details again though, because most of the leaders, warriors, slave-owners,abusers, immoral and unjust individuals etc. of the last 2,000 years have claimed to believe Jesus' words, indeed have done their evil with this verse on their lips, praying to Jesus and reading the Bible as they did their horrific deeds.

So, we need to go deeper.

A lawyer questions Jesus--sounds legalistic doesn't it--asking exactly, "WHO IS MY NEIGHBOR?"

(Remember, in Jewish culture, men wouldn't even eat with Gentiles!)

Jesus reverses the thinking of humans such as that lawyer by giving the Parable of the Good Samaritan, pointing out we should be loving like a heretic and national enemy and show active compassion and practical deeds of help including personal involvement, the giving of our money and our time.

This is a continuation of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5: 38-48) where he even contradicts such Jewish heroes as David and says that we should love our enemies.

And so his followers wouldn't get the wrong idea (like so many later would despite his very words), Jesus emphasizes that "loving one’s enemies" means practical actions on our part.

For instance, if an enemy nation conquers you and its soldiers abuse and execute your people and these killers demand you behave as a servant by carrying their military bags for a mile, then you are to offer to carry these enemy killers' things for another extra mile!

When enemies "HATE YOU, BLESS THOSE WHO CURSE YOU, PRAY FOR THOSE WHO MISTREAT YOU.."(Luke 6: 27-38).

Of course, for most of us (like Jesus' disciples who wanted to kill the Romans and call fire down to destroy the Samaritans, etc.), we need even more directions of what the word "love" actually means and so the N.T. provides many more definitions and examples. The best is 1 Corinthians 13:

Love is patient,
love is kind
and is not jealous;
love does not brag and is not arrogant,
does not act unbecomingly;
love does not seek its own,
is not provoked,
does not take into account a wrong suffered,
does not rejoice in unrighteousness,
but rejoices with the truth;
bears all things, believes all things,
hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never fails. (NASB)

How can we possibly love individuals of HAMAS or Iran or Russia!?
Muslim jihadists?
Criminals who rape, abuse, kidnap, murder?
A co-worker who lied about us so that we lost our job?

One way is to remember as Martin Luther King cautioned, we aren't called to "like" evil doers, but are rather called to show them benevolence in order that they might turn from their evil ways.

This is Jesus' walk, what it means to be Friends.

To love everyone into the realm of the LIGHT--the GOOD, the TRUE, the Just:-)

In the LIGHT,

Daniel Wilcox

What the Sermon on the Mount Got Right, But Christians, Jews, and Muslims get woefully Wrong

What the Sermon on the Mount Got Right, But What the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic Religions Get Woefully Wrong

If the 10 Commandments had been practiced with ALL people and for ALL people, they would have been good,
BUT notice that Jews, Christians, and Muslims for thousands of years
only required that enemies NOT violate those commands and that they themselves only needed to practice such moral behavior within their own select religious group.

In contrast, believing that God had ordered them to do so,
the Jews, Christians, and Muslims regularly
lied,
stole,
and slaughtered their enemies.

And still do so even now in the 21st century.

Read about constant Jewish abuse and theft of land, of water, of resources, in Palestine-Israel, etc.

Jews sometimes massacred every man, woman, child, and infant in the Bible because they believed that God ordered them to do so.

David, supposedly the “man after God’s heart, massacred whole villages, killing every person. And he did this to STEAL their loot.

And in the Jewish Bible in Exodus, if after a Jewish slave owner beat a slave almost to death, yet the slave didn't die in less than 2 or 3 days, no Jewish owner was punished because the slave was the Jew's “property”!

Strange isn’t it, that the Hebrews were so thankful that they escaped slavery, but then they enslaved others.
- Muhammad robbed caravans, had at least 500 Jewish men beheaded, and then enslaved all of the women and children:-(

And Muslims have been doing likewise, for the most part, ever since.
Some nations of Islam didn't even ban slavery until the 20th century!

Creedal Christians in history constantly lied, stole, abused, slaughtered..
Read what they did in “Jesus Wars” back in the 4th century--see the historian Philip Jenkins famous book, Jesus Wars.

Other horrific examples include the present Christian war by Russia, who has invaded Ukraine, with the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church calling for the war, much as devout Christians 1,000 years ago called for the evil Crusades.

Many others show these same immoral and unjust actions by Christians--the English Civil War, the 30 Years War, the American Civil War, the French Religious Wars, the Great War, Vietnam, the British Opium War against China where they forced that nation to take opium!

So ironic the American un-Civil War where dedicated Christians even vandalized, wrecked Southern churches, stabled their horses in them, etc. Heck, one Union soldier even stole a Southern family's Bible and took it back to New England. These devout Christian soldiers after invading, stole clothes, weapons, horses, food, etc. nearly every day.

See, in all of these historic and modern cases, Christians thought it was only wrong to steal from each other, but that God gave them the “right” and “duty” to steal from the enemies, even if the enemies were also Christians.

In contrast, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, states that humans ought to “love their enemies,” do good to their enemies…

This one reason that the secular writer Kurt Vonnegut Jr. and the Buddhist monk Thick Nhat Hanh, and many other human leaders consider Jesus' Sermon on the Mount an ethical precept of deep truth.

CAUTION: “Love” here doesn’t mean emotionally like or approve of!

As Martin Luther King Jr. so clearly pointed out in one of his speeches, to “love one’s enemies” means one has benevolence toward them. For instance, King certainly didn't like the KKK who attacked him, who firebombed his home, but he chose to have hope that if cared for, these bad people might come to the truth and change.

Moral truths are universal.
If stealing is wrong between my neighbor and myself, it is also wrong for us to do it to civilians and soldiers of an enemy nation.

This is why war is, by far, the most evil of all human actions. Invariably in every war, humans on both sides regularly lie, steal, abuse, rape, and slaughter, as well as violate the other commandments.

Let us hope and act to proclaim Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.


In the Light of the Good, the True, the Just, and Altruistic Caring,
Dan Wilcox

My Response to William Lane Craig, Famous Christian Leader, who claims his inner experience is more important than factual evidence

One of the most famous Christian apologists has made a strange video making the most bizarre claim--that his inner feeling of the Christian belief in the Holy Spirit is far more reliable than actual factual evidence! Not only that, he states that even if all factual evidence shows his belief is wrong, he will still choose to stay with what he feels!

Yet at Talbot School of Theology, where he teaches, there are other professors who totally contradict WLC's own view of God! They have contrary inner experience that they hold to be true!

How can Craig reconcile that with his statement that his inner feeling is from the Holy Spirit when those other professors at his theological school disagree, stating that the Holy Spirit witnesses differently to humans than Craig believes!

His central, primary basis for his version of Christianity being true is what he experiences within his consciousness, not actual historical and scientific evidence!

1. Doesn't Craig realize that many other religious leaders, contrary to his own beliefs have stated that they "know" their religion is true, too because of the inner witness they have experienced!

Mormon leaders emphasize they know LDS is the true religion because they have an inner witness! Some leaders Buddhism claim their own inner knowing. Muslims claim Islam is true, as do Hindus, Jehovah Witnesses, New Agers, and aas already pointed out contrary forms of Christianity, very different from WLC's particular form do too.

2. What would WLC say to me, a dedicated Christian for 55 years, who has been a minister, elder, missionary, Bible teacher, etc. However I NEVER experienced any such KNOWING! Even if I did experience such an inner feeling, I wouldn't rely on it if it countered hard evidence in science and history.

I do remember many, many sermons and books that declared I could "KNOW" that Christianity is true. But never once did I ever experience a KNOWING.
I kept searching for years, thinking that If I just tried harder, I would finally KNOW like leaders claimed I would, but it never happened.

Heck, I remember one Chiristian leader told me to just speak spontaneously and I would receive the Holy Spirit.

But I pointed out that if I did that it wouldn't be God's Spirit but just me speaking. At that point, I began to realize that this claim by millions of Christians of Knowing was probably an illusion, even for some, a con/propaganda that leaders used.


What I experienced instead in my life mostly was my voluntarily choosing, despite questions, to hope that the Good News was true, rather than some of the horrific other worldviews I encountered.
HOWEVER, that was a hope, and I tried to never discount hard fact of science and history.

Now, as I look back on over 60 years, I deeply regret that in the huge crisis I experienced as a university student at Cal State, Long Beach on the quad in 1966 that I fell for an either/or fallacy of Christianity.

At that defining crisis and decision of my life, since a couple other worldviews of professors and stuendes were morally horrific, I concluded, that despite my severe rational doubts about Christianity, that liberal Christianity (liberal Baptist-Quakerism) was the only place to make my stand.
Even though I was taking philosophy courses back then including one on logic, somehow I fell into the either/or fallacy, rather than to look for other possible life stances.

Because most of important life choices aren't either/or.

Maybe, IF I had come across WLC's bizarre, hugely irrational claim back then in the late 60's, I could have saved myself and my family many years of heartache and misplaced hope.

Review of the powerful, suspenseful biography of Timothy Leary by Robert Greenfield

TIMOTHY LEARY: An Experimental Life by Robert Greenfield

An amazing, detailed, suspenseful, excruciating biography and expose of Timothy Leary. While the tome is one of the best biographies I have read, my view of Leary has changed from thinking him a fairly benign 60’s LSD visionary and promoter and peaceful hippy leader to viewing him as a ruthless sociopath.

We discover at first, he seemed for the most part to be a rising brilliant leader of the establishment, even a West Point soldier/student, then a brilliant Harvard psychologist.

But then we learn, not only did Leary go very wrong like his own father, but became far worse.
Early on Leary was a constant womanizer/adulterer including wife-swapping parties while a psychologist at UC Berkeley, (which led to his first wife’s suicide), became a negligent-criminally-harmful parent to both his kids.

For instance, at one point he talked emotionally powerfully about a close loving episode he had with his son, Jack. Only the facts were that the event never happened. He seldom gave his son any attention or guidance, and they were alienated from each other for many years!

While Leary often spoke in glowing terms of his love for his son and daughter, it appears to have been empty words. He regularly failed to care for them, spend time with them, but instead was preoccupied with constant drug use and constant promiscuity. And he even encouraged them and led them to also do drugs, while they were still young!

Throughout his life, Leary was an almost sociopathic opportunist, constant liar and spinner of fallacious narratives, a brilliant charismatic carny-conman, who manipulated everyone from strangers to his wives and best friends.

Years later, after he escaped from SLO prison, (where he had been sentenced unfairly for 10 years because of a few ounces of marijuana), he rejected his promotion of enlightenment, peace, and love via LSD and mushrooms.

Because his escape was planned with the help of the Weather Underground and the mafia-drug-cartel, falsely-named Brotherhood of Eternal Love, Leary moved to Algeria and became an avid supporter of violent revolutionaries and terrorists, the Black Panthers, Eldridge Cleaver, the PLO, and worse.

Also, Leary became involved with Alister Crowley’s grossly evil beliefs and actions, continued to do constant drugs, even tried heroin. He met and praised other exiles, criminals and degenerates including Williams Burroughs, and, yet, all the while continued drawing millions to his immoral and unjust beliefs and actions!

In the 1970’s, Leary began writing and promoting weird conspiracy-apocalyptic-new-age claims such as his new book that claimed a nearing comet was going to reveal aliens and we humans were going to be transformed, and some of us humans were going to create a star ship to travel the galaxy!

When the U.S. government finally caught him in Afghanistan, incredibly, Leary created a new persona, denied his 60’s message, became a government informant and began to snitch on everyone he knew.

He even betrayed his devoted wife (who he had claimed to love with all of his being), betrayed the lawyers who had helped him escape from prison before, and many other 60’s best friends. He did this in hopes that all of these betrayals would get him out of prison! A self-centered, ruthless user!

Eventually sent to Folsom prison where his next-door cell mate was Charles Manson, Leary spent time conversing in a friendly way with Manson. Though I suppose if one keeps in mind that Leary had been a brilliant and famous Harvard psychologist, maybe he was only operating in a nonjudgmental objective psychologist mode, not really being friendly.

When I was in a therapy group, the psychologist did not once question the continuing adultery that a group member spoke of being engaged in. It’s one thing to not be judgmental when observing, entirely a different thing IF a leader conveys to individuals that their horrendous behavior doesn’t need to be changed! Of course, in the case of Manson, his prior evil actions of murderous slaughter had been far worse than Leary's minor drug arrest, promiscuty, aduldteries, lying, etc.

Throughout most of these chameleon changes ove they years, Leary continued to proclaim that all humans needed was to LOVE! Tragically and absurdly, his many years of actions had nothing to do with love, but only manipulation and using others.

Finally, after Leary abandoned his 60’s enlightenment, love and peace message, while in prison he asked Joanna to sneak a gun to him! He planned to kill his guards and escape. She was able to sneak a gun into him because she was so good at acting the bereaved wife, that the famous prison didn’t even check her when she came through lock-up with the gun in her waist pants! She also had two large knives in her high boots to use.

They rehearsed this plan over and over, according to Joanna. She had even, already, rented a house for them to hide in. BUT then Tim decided not to carry out their murders, not because he would feel guilty, but because he decided there were too many practical problems in such an escape attempt!

Obviously, it appears, that NOT one of Leary’s many thousands of idealistic pages and speeches for years of love and peace meant anything, not when he wanted what he wanted. Leray was the classic user. Heck, later after release from prison, when, Leary, again reinvented himself, he completely denied that he had ever been a druggie, ever advocated drug use, etc.

His new message was support for the establishment, anti-drugs, etc. But Leary actually continued a chaotic life, with promiscuity, major lying and deceit; he daily abused alcohol, chain-smoked, regularly took marijuana, a lot of cocaine, some Ecstasy, DMT, even a dangerous steroid drug for animals (because it had psychedelic results).

Leary emphasized that Hugh Hefner is a central hero of America and gave huge support to Larry Flint, the publisher of Hustler Magazine.

And Leary continued to draw young women into his upper-class social circle. He knew and hung out with many famous people including Johnny Depp, a Getty daughter, Tony Curtis, Liza Minnelli and many others in Beverly Hills, Hollywood, and LA.

Finally, in his 70's, when Leary was diagnosed with inoperable cancer, many, many devotees came to his house to give him support and help. Some of them stayed and they cared for him since no nurse would any longer take the job. Major networks, magazines, etc. contested for exclusive interviews. There were often many people waiting outside of his rented house to be let in. Everyone from Oliver Stone to Larry Flint.

His strange life had become the Cult of Leary.

Earlier in his life, he had planned to have his body put in a cryogenic tank in order to be brought back in the future. But toward the end when the tank was brought into his room, Leary became angry at the cryogenic workers and cancelled it.

Instead, he talked repeatedly of possibly doing an online suicide, with cameras videoing him at his computer. But Leary later changed to a different plan.

One prison psychologist in his evaluation of two famous lawbreakers, Leary and Manson—wrote that they both had very elevated views of themselves—what is often the case of famous charismatic human leaders—but that while Manson was psychotic and evil, Leary was sane, however had little personal conscience.

So very strange for the apostle of enlightenment, peace, and love adored by millions.

Now, in the 21st century, there has been a return to the extremism and injustice that destroyed the late 1960’s. At least 84% of Evangelicals and nearly all Republicans avidly support the immoral, unjust actions and huge lies of Donald Trump, and the grossly wrong views of the leftists such as the BLM organization, violent protesters, and CRT. Extremism is accepted and promoted by major Democratic leaders, the National Educational Association, etc.

We seem to be, again, living in a time of massive delusion.

This powerful, suspenseful biography looks backward, and successfully shows the tragedy and absurdity of the charismatic Timothy Leary, of one of the 60’s most famous cultural heroes. Robert Greenfield shows how so much evil and darkness can result when multimillions of humans become avidly fixated to a morally dark leader.

It seems hardly any of us humans ever find the True, the Good, and the Just.

Evaluation: A++

Choose the Light, the Good, the Compassionate, the True,

Dan Wilcox

Hymn for the 81% who voted for Trump

--

"In 2016, 81% of white evangelical Christians voted for Donald Trump after (among other things) hearing an audio recording of him bragging about sexually assaulting women.

Maya Angelou famously said, “when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”

In the years since, even after enacting deliberately cruel policies to rip families apart and put children in cages at the southern border, evangelical support is as fervent as ever.

I was raised in the Evangelical world. It shaped me. I learned to take the words of Jesus seriously - love God, love your neighbor, feed the hungry, fight for justice for the oppressed. I thought that things like love, kindness, gentleness, and self-control MATTERED. I have been so confused and deeply saddened by the unflinching loyalty to a man who so clearly embodies the opposite of these values.

This song is a lament. It's a loving rebuke. It's a plea for the 81%, to come home to the way of Jesus."

Songwriter Daniel Deitrich

Section #3: FOR vs. AGAINST Gay Marriage

FOR

The following points appear to be the sort of reasonings for gay marriage that individuals such as Peter and Chasten hold toward marriage versus the contrary views of "the Mike Pences of the world" (Peter's phrase):

#1 While it isn't wise to abandon or jettison one of the central moral codes of the last 4,000 years, when new information,
new insights, new intuitions, new experiences call into question one of the tenets,
it is very important that we listen, think, dialog and if warranted,
CHANGE our minds.

According to statistics, about 5% to 11% of Americans aren't exclusively heterosexual. The numbers vary according to how one deals with the issues. For instance, about 8 million, 3.5% "identify as LGBT." But about 11% "acknowledge at least some same-sexual attraction."
When all of the numbers are crunched, at least 19 million to 25.6 million aren't only opposite sexual in orientation.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/how-many-people-are-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/

Those millions of same sexual human beings are equal to other humans, have the same inherent worth, have the same human rights, are just as precious as those humans who judge them as morally wrong.

WHY SHOULD THEY BE EXCLUDED FROM MARRIAGE because of the dominant ancient moral code?

Of course, Christians, Muslims, and Jews answer that the reason is the same as why robbers, molesters, polygamists, etc. ought to be excluded from various rights: same sexual relations, like the other moral violations, is contrary to what is true and same sexuality is harmful, degenerate, and an abomination similar to other 'gross' actions.

NOW NOTICE HERE: THIS IS WHERE THE CONTROVERSY GETS COMPLICATED!

Most conservative Christian-Jewish-Muslim leaders are equating identity with action.

ERROR? They generally reject the view held by many modern secular thinkers that same sexual individuals are born, (or born-nurtured), gay/transgender, etc.

IN CONTRAST, these religious leaders believe that all alternative sexual identities are CHOSEN. Many think that this is an immoral choice by each individual human and that all of them are actually born heterosexual. They think that the idea of "sexual orientation" is a falsehood like "evolution," "socialism," etc.

Other conservative leaders think that while homosexuality isn't self-chosen by some humans, homosexuality itself is part of the FALL, part of ORIGINAL SIN that infects all humans and must be resisted.

They emphasize that all humans are "totally depraved," that all of us are born "in essence, evil" but that this particular depravity, homosexuality, only shows in some of us humans, while other humans commit incest, molestation, robbery, lying, and so forth.

IN CONTRAST, same sexual leaders such as Peter Buttigieg, emphasize that they didn't choose their nature, nor is their nature bad, but on the contrary, “That’s the thing that I wish the Mike Pences of the world would understand that if you have a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.”

The traditional moral rule against same sexuality doesn't apply to him as self-chosen. On the contrary, Peter says that for a long time his identity deeply grieved and troubled him: “It’s hard to face the truth that there were times in my life when, if you had shown me exactly what it was inside me that made me gay, I would have cut it out with a knife.”

"If you had offered me a pill to make me straight, I would’ve swallowed it before you had time to give me a sip of water."

The KEY point of Peter is that sexual orientation is from God, but that how we express our orientation is a question of right and wrong, good and bad that we humans choose.

For instance, in regards to President Trump's immoral actions, Peter said, "“I can’t believe that somebody that was caught writing hush money checks to adult film actresses is somebody they should be lifting up as the kind of person they want to be leading this nation.” (Meet the Press)

AGAIN, REASON #1, ACCORDING TO LEADERS LIKE PETER AND CHASTEN, TONY CAMPOLO, ETC. IS THAT ALL HUMANS NEED TO USE THEIR SEXUAL NATURE AND IDENTITY (WHETHER GAY OR STRAIGHT) IN THE LIFE-ENHANCING, MORAL WAY OF MARRIAGE.

What is wrong isn't sexual orientation, but immoral choices of promiscuity, infidelity, and so forth.

DENYING GAY HUMANS THE RIGHT TO MARRY is WRONG FOR THAT NOT ONLY DENIES THEIR ESSENTIAL WORTH AND VALUE, BUT LEAVES THEM LIVING THEIR SEXUALITY OUTSIDE OF SOCIAL COMMITMENT.

This seems to be a very strong point for the goodness of gay marriage.

How very different might famous Civil Rights leader Bayard Rustin's life have been if he had been able to marry in the 1940's, have that public social commitment help him to overcome his tendency--temptations--to engage in gay promiscuous one-night stands.

His non-married sexual choices then hurt him, his close friends, harmed the image of Civil Rights, and kept Bayar hidden in the background of the Movement because of the immoral violation of engaging in sex in a car in Pasadena with a stranger, caught by California police.

It is tragic that a large number of gay men still make promiscuous choices because they have been taught by Western society and culture that their identity is morally wrong.

Gay marriage--its emphasis that gay humans are equal in worth and rights to heterosexuals--is surely an important reason why gay marriage is true.

Past generations of human leaders (the human authors of the MORAL CODE), didn't know about orientation so they misunderstood thinking that same sexuality in itself was immoral. They confused essence with particular immoral actions.

What do you think?

#2

--
AGAINST

#1 One of the most important statements—which has proven tragically to be true-- made by religious people 20 years ago was that recognizing gay marriage wouldn’t create new ideals of moral realism but would become a slippery slope to the demand for more immoral behavior.

At the time, back then, I thought that the Christian spokesmen who were claiming that this would happen were fear-mongering and using scare tactics to hurt sincere humans who were gay.

HOWEVER, strangely, this odd contradiction has begun to happen. Some same sexual leaders instead of continuing to support monogamy, now that gay marriage has become legal in the United States, are, instead, supporting promiscuity,
sex workers,
drag queens,
pornography,
and
‘polyamory’ a form of group marriage, where 3 or 4 or more individuals engage in temporary sexual relations.

After reading a bunch of articles and defenses of ‘polyamory,’ it does seem that the religious leaders’ warnings of the past have come true.

Heck, even some fairly orthodox Christian leaders have come out in support of 'polyamory' as good!

But ‘polyamory’ isn’t even the sometimes mild immoral practice of polygamy or concubinage but appears to be a western nation version of acceptable short-term (as short as 3 days or 3 months!) sexual relations like in 12er Shia Islam.

As a former hippie who lived in Haight-Asbury in the spring of 1966 before receiving my draft notice, I remember all of the glowing talk about “Make Love, Not War,”
but generally what this amounted to was lust for a night or a week or a month.

‘Polyamory” seems to just be a regress to those empty-user phrases made by young people who wanted sex without care,
sex without commitment,
sex without intimacy.

When I lived there near Haight street, that was still a somewhat idealistic time. However very soon the Haight lust and 'highs' descended into hate, violence, drug pushing and abuse, and other forms of unethical behavior.

So much for ‘love.’

#2
--


Let us hope that more same sexual individuals will choose monogamous commitment in marriage like Pete and Chasten.

To be continued--

In the Light of the Good and the True,

Daniel Wilcox

Section #1: News Controversy: The Meaning of Sexuality & Marriage

This week controversy erupted, again, between Democrats and Republicans on questions of the meaning of sexuality and marriage. Let's short-step back from the political fracas and reflect on sexuality-marriage itself.

The meaning of human sexuality is deep, transcendent, complicated and controversial. Then there is the related question of marriage or not. It appears that no one can get away from the intense subject.

A few quotes to show the inexplicable contrariness and contradictory outlook of various human beings toward this incessantly fascinating topic of sexuality and marriage:

In some early Buddhism, such as the Theradvada writings, it was not possible for a woman to become a bodhisativa; a human is born a woman because of bad karma!

And most Buddhists chose celibacy.

Then there is the infamous verse by Paul in the New Testament:
“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
1 Corinthians 7:1

And Orthodox Judaism' men's prayer thanking God for not making them a woman or a slave. And how women are unclean and have to take ritual baths.

On the other hand, some religious texts seem to glory in sexuality:
"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine:"
-Song of Songs, Chapter 1:2, Jewish Bible

"And God created the human in his image,
in the image of God...male and female...
And God blessed them, and God said to them,
Be fruitful and multiply
...and, look, it was very good."
Genesis 1:27-31

"The [marriage] vows should be written like a dog's license that has to be renewed every year...I think vows should be changed because they've been in existence for 600 years when people used to live until they were only 35. So they only had to be with each other for 12 years, then they would die anyway. But now it's a big commitment because you're going to be with someone for 50 years. It's impossible...It's such a rarity for people to stay together that 68% of marriages fail. I don't want to urinate on the party, but one must consider that before getting married.
VS.
His rock anthem to romantic commitment:
"You're in my heart, you're in my soul
You'll be my breath should I grow old
You are my lover, you're my best friend
You're in my soul

My love for you is immeasurable
My respect for you immense
You're ageless, timeless, lace and fineness
You're beauty and elegance

You're a rhapsody, a comedy
You're a symphony and a play
You're every love song ever written...
You are my lover, you're my best friend
You're in my soul"
--Rock Musician Rod Stewart
--

“Sex is like pissing. People take it much too seriously."
--Famous Muralist and Painter Diego Rivera

“If I ever loved a woman, the more I loved her, the more I wanted to hurt her. Frida was only the most obvious victim of this disgusting trait.”
--Diego Rivera

“Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?”
Yeshua, Jewish prophet

“Chastity: The most unnatural of the sexual perversions."
-Aldous Huxley

"I think I could fall madly in bed with you."
-Anonymous

“Vanity, revenge, loneliness, boredom, all apply: lust is one of the least of the reasons for promiscuity."
-Mignon McLaughlin

"How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of being and ideal grace.
I love thee to the level of every day’s
Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.
I love thee freely, as men strive for right...
I love thee with the passion...I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life..."
-Elizabeth Barrett Browning

“To me heaven would be...two lovely houses in the town; one where I would have my wife and children and be monogamous and love them truly and well and the other where I would have my nine beautiful mistresses on nine different floors.”
-Ernest Hemingway

“The sweetest joy, the wildest woe is love.”
-Philip James Bailey

“Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
I Corinthians 7:1, New Testament

"Love is the word used to label the sexual excitement of the young, the habituation of the middle-aged, and the mutual dependence of the old."
-John Ciardi

"My own sexual mores...I do not believe that I should be passionately in love with my partner...and still less, married.
For there is a special and humanizing delight in erotic friendships with no strings attached..."

"My life would be much, much poorer were it not for certain
particular women with whom I have most happily and congenially committed adultery...”
-Philosopher Alan Watts

"I never knew how to worship until I knew how to love."
-Henry Ward Beecher

Roman and Grace are a married Spokane Indian couple. He is standing close to her with his basketball between them, as if the ball represents the expectant infant they will soon create…
“Michael Jordan is coming back again,” he said.
“You can’t fool me,” said Grace. “I heard it. That was just a replay.”
“Yeah, but I wish he was coming back again. He should always come back.”
“Don’t let it give you any crazy ideas.”
Roman pulled the basketball away and leaned even closer to Grace. He loved her, of course, but better than that, he chose her, day after day. Choice: that was the thing. Other people claimed that you can't choose who you love—it just happens!—but Grace and Roman knew that was a bunch of happy horseshit. Of course you chose who you loved...Damn, marriage was hard work, was manual labor, and unpaid manual labor at that. Yet, year after year, Grace and Roman had pressed their shoulders against the stone and rolled it up the hill together.

In their marriage bed, Roman chose Grace once more and brushed his lips against her ear.
Monogamous love and marriage
-From “Saint Junior” by Sherman Alexie
VS.
Alexie's Infidelity
"In all, 10 women spoke to NPR about Alexie, who is a married man...but a clear pattern emerged: The women reported behavior ranging from inappropriate comments...unwanted sexual advances and consensual sexual relations that ended abruptly. The women said Alexie had traded on his literary celebrity to lure them into uncomfortable sexual situations.
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/05/589909379/it-just-felt-very-wrong-sherman-alexies-accusers-go-on-the-record

WHY DO SO MANY HUMANS, ESPECIALLY LEADERS, (EVEN THOSE WHO AFFIRM MARRIAGE AND "LOVE") LEAD IMMORAL, HARMFUL LIVES?

Since sex only has 3 letters, how did it become a 4-letter word (to "plow" or "care" or "love")?

How does an instinctive procreative act characteristic of all humans
(and most forms of life down to fish and below) come to mean everything
from the degrading and sadistically obscene to the uplifting and creatively intimate?

From the violently aggressive to the joyfully receptive?

From one-sided selfishness to intimate communion of two lives?

Regardless of one’s worldview, most humans think humankind has reached a state in evolution
wherein individuals of our species can creatively use human innate characteristics,
adapting them for many different purposes and in very different ways.

This “plasticity” of human abilities enable billions of individuals to use their physical and brain skills, not only for time-immemorial practical acts such as plowing a field or constructing a building,
but
for transcendent goals or self-focused wants.

Humans can use their brains' consciousness and muscles to do acts that have no practicality at all such as play suspenseful sports in the Olympics or dance in complex moves across theater stages or construct beautiful poetic songs.

This “plasticity”—for good or ill--is, especially, true for human sexuality as shown by the wide variety of statements about sex by famous individuals as already shared.

Most of us aren’t too surprised by the sludge coming out in the media or by so-called red-necked vulgarity.

The guttural view of sex has probably been around since cavemen first spoke;-), but when brilliant well-educated humans glorify promiscuous sex, it is troubling and tragic.

So often in the news now, human sexuality
is very ambiguous with many strange variations,
and many of them destructive,
and so contrary to the Truth,
the Good,
and the Beautiful.

We’re all sexual, and in different ways, but, hopefully, we don't major in being unfaithful, disloyal, and promiscuous and, even worse, declare our harmful dysfunctional behavior with pride to the world.

The Vietnamese Buddhist nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, Thich Nhat Hanh, emphasized that humans seeking to become enlightened live their sexuality in enhancing ethical ways.

Yes, sexuality is a very powerful force/drive within humanity which has been shaped like soft plastic into countlessly different configurations by humans and their worldviews.

The earlier modern quote about the basketball player and his wife catches the true spirit of human sexuality, as God intends sexuality to be—a joyous monogamous life-long daily choice by two equals.

Let's say it again, sexuality is a whole life response by a couple committed to a life-long relationship, neither temporary glandular instinct nor a restricted negative necessity.

Here’s another fine explanation: “...Your understanding of love will change as you get older...I remember my second date...I totally lost my cool and told her I loved her. On our SECOND date!!"

"You know what? I recently told that very same girl how much I love her, and how glad I am that I married her...But what I meant when I really meant it 23 years ago is a lot different from what I mean when I really mean it today!"

"In 23 years, I’ve learned to put aside my selfishness more often, and I’ve learned more ways to love and cherish her...the heart of genuine love [in human sexuality] is an immovable decision to put your lover’s joy and welfare ahead of your own."

"Usually, you don’t fall into that kind of love; you climb into it. It’s not just something you feel [nor an instinctive urge]. It’s a decision you make.”
Duffy in Breakaway
--

Sexual love is a monogamous life-long commitment, a unique “ultimate” relationship—where two individuals give themselves to each other emotionally, mentally, and physically.

That’s true love.

True love (in the marriage sense) is unlike any other human relationship, except in some sacred writing where God is often spoken of as every individual human’s lover.

Indeed, romantic sexual imagery is often used in literature to describe the ecstasy of “knowing” God intimately. Makes sense doesn’t it?

YET now--in the midst of all of the sexual harassment, "Me, Too" bad news, there is the controversy of moral leader Peter Buttigieg versus moral leader Mile Pence, both even of the same religion, Christianity, who, while agreeing that sexual relations ought to be part of a monogamous, loving commitment for life,
YET they completely disagree about the nature of marriage!

Is marriage to only happen between a man and a woman (as held by traditional Christianity, Islam, and Judaism claims)
OR
is marriage also right for a same sexual couple?

What do you think?

Please share your perspective.

To Be Continued:

In the Light,
Daniel Wilcox

Romantic Love: Friendship that has Caught Fire

Fidelity: Becoming loyal, reliable, consistent.

Love: Choosing commitment, is action.

Friendship: committing to another individual who has interests and goals in common, with affection and esteem.

Romancing love is “friendship that has caught fire,” filled with romance, passion and mental, emotional, and sexual intimacy.

Consider the fiery words of Sherman Alexie from one of his famous short stories. Roman and Grace are a married Spokane Native American couple. He is standing close to her with his basketball between them, as if the ball represents the expectant infant they will soon create...

“Michael Jordan is coming back again,” he said.

“You can’t fool me,” said Grace. “I heard it. That was just a replay.”

“Yeah, but I wish he was coming back again. He should always come back.”

“Don’t let it give you any crazy ideas.”

Roman pulled the basketball away and leaned even closer to Grace. He loved her, of course, but better than that, he chose her, day after day.

Choice: that was the thing. Other people claimed that you can't choose who you love—it just happens!—but Grace and Roman knew that was a bunch of happy horseshit...

Damn, marriage was hard work, was manual labor, and unpaid manual labor at that...that was what was missing in most marriages: politeness, courtesy…thank-you notes to his wife for the smallest favors, did the dishes…vacuumed...

...year after year, Grace and Roman had pressed their shoulders against the stone and rolled it up the hill together.

Then he lifted the ball over his head...and pushed it toward the rim...it caught fire.
From “Saint Junior” by Sherman Alexie, Grove Press, pages 176-178, 188
--

Yes, LOVE is friendship that has caught fire.
Love grows like a glowing vineyard in the sunrise,
takes root and develops one day at a time. Love
in maturity is like fine wine, improves with age.

Love is quiet understanding and mature acceptance
of imperfection. Love gives strength and creatively
opens in new ways
to your beloved.


You are warmed by your beloved’s presence,
even when your lover is away. Miles do not separate.
You want your beloved nearer. But near or far, you
know your lover is yours, and you are your beloved's.

Love means patience and trust. Love springs up;
you and your beloved feel more whole. Love fill
the empty spaces in your hearts, leads you both
to look up, and to give out to others.

Love is
creative, compassionate, gentle, and kind,
coming from deep in the heart, essential.

Love is choosing again and again, daily to love
your beloved even in the hard times.

Love is wider
than the widest, deeper than the deepest,
closer than the closest--
a fire of chosen passion.

Anon and adapted

Meticulous Honesty: Why Dishonesty Is ALWAYS wrong

Preface:
Very popular, again, is the view that there are no inherent moral truths. Various thinkers state that moral realism isn’t true, that sometimes lying is good, etc. Often this outlook on ethics emphasizes that the end justifies the means and that “love” is the only rule.

Unfortunately, words such as “love” are empty-bucket terms meaning contradictory acts and are almost meaningless. For instance, the famous Roman Catholic leader, Augustine, in the 4th century wrote, “Love and do what you will. (on the First Epistle of John, Homily 7 on 1 John 4:4-12)

But Augustine was the same Christian leader who brought hard determinism into the Christian religion, condemning all human infants as being guilty of Original Sin, claiming that only a limited number of humans were predestined to be rescued, billions of others left to damnation.

Augustine also used the power of the Roman state to persecute others. And he abandoned his common law wife/concubine of 10 years, and planned, instead, to move to Rome and marry a high-class lady. At least he didn’t abandon his son from his common-law wife.
Etc.

Other Christian leaders have gone even further. Christian theologian, Episcopal priest Joseph Fletcher, in the late 1960’s wrote the book called Situation Ethics which claimed that loving could mean to lie, to commit adultery, to blackmail, even to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians!

According to Fletcher, “nothing is inherently right or wrong” (page 134). Allegedly, later, Fletcher promoted abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, etc. in the name of “love.” (according to Wikipedia)

Paul Tillich, the famous Lutheran philosopher and theologian, wrote that “love is the ultimate law” (Systematic Theology, Volume 1, page 152) then repeatedly committed adultery, etc. The long scholarly biography of Tillich shows how dishearteningly wrong Tillich behaved, like so many others, by holding to the semantically vague idea of "love" as the only guide.
ETC.

Even many Christians who claim to believe in objective ethics (not situation ethics) argue for very strange moral views such as the American Christian leader who declared that the atom bomb is “God’s gift to America”!

Or the millions of Christians (over 78% of American Evangelical Christians) who defend President Trump’s forcefully taking little children under 4 from their refugee mothers and sending the crying toddlers off thousands of miles away from their mothers to U.S. government facilities!

And ALL of those ethically wrong actions happened because the American Christians lied about the nature of the refugees, claiming they were criminals, drug dealers, enslavers, etc.

Even if--let's hypothesize--no bad results came from lying (or what ever other violation of moral truths), that lying would still be contrary to what is good and right.

Tragically, humans who think that morality, justice, human rights, etc. are inherently real and true, not subject to situations seem, often, to be in the minority.

MAIN POINT:
DISHONESTY/LYING is ALWAYS wrong.
Theft, adultery, infanticide, killing, and so forth are ALWAYS WRONG…
AND
Meticulous honesty, sharing, generosity, infant care, compassion, justice and so forth are ALWAYS RIGHT.

WHY:
1. Without meticulous honesty, fields and professions such as science, technology, architecture and construction, medicine, criminal justice, education, and so forth can’t function well or successfully.
Human history and current events are strewn with the millions of cases of scientists, law enforcement officers, politicians, architects, doctors, teachers, etc. who in the name of what ever ethics they followed, lied, deceived, or shaved the truth.
When a doctor lies, it might mean only deeply harming a patient. But when a scientist lies, it could wreak havoc on an entire society causing the suffering and death of millions of humans.

2. Unfortunately, the vast majority of humans have a penchant toward viewing the world from their own advantage point. We tend to justify what looks good for our group or our nation. Consider cases such as how the leading intellectuals and brilliant scholars of the various opposing nations of 1914 led us into the completely wrong Great War, which caused the slaughter of at least 15 million humans.

See Manifesto of the Ninety-Three German Intellectuals
https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Manifesto_of_the_Ninety-Three_German_Intellectuals


See Preachers Present Arms by Ray h. Abrams

As various writers have emphasized the first fatality of war is truth. Lies are the immoral “body-guards” (to twist a phrase of Winston Churchill who infamously claimed that lies are bodyguards who protect truth!)

Another lesser case is the official lies—especially the Gulf of Tonkin lies-- told by the American government which led to over 2 million humans slaughtered in Vietnam including over 50,000 Americans.

Of course, most of these humans lied, deceived, were dishonest from the best of motives (though their motives you notice were based in the group egotism of their particular nation and society).

3. ALL lying, all deception, all dishonesty is to state contrary to reality. For instance, the construction boss needs to get the building finished by October 1st for many good reasons. Yet the inspector has been slow in coming out to certify, so the contractor hedges the truth. After all, in other situations, the minor deception hasn’t resulted in anything bad.

But regardless of whether or not his dishonesty catches up with the construction contractor (even though he meant it for good), the lie is contrary to what is true and real.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE EXTREME CASES?

Extreme cases are, admittedly, difficult. And so various thinkers have stated that honesty must be relative to end results.
People say, wouldn’t it be good to lie to a Nazi, to lie to a murderer?

However, as I’ve already pointed out, these extreme situations don’t normally happen. Yet they are often pulled up to justify more common situations in which many people think a lie is also “good” in their particular difficulties.

Second, lying is always wrong even in desperate situations.
But what if an abused child hides at your house?
Will you lie to protect the innocent child from the abusive father?

What if you can discover no other option?

In that case since no alternative seems available, you can't find a good way to deal with the crisis, then you may choose to do what is wrong, the least wrong action.

Notice, the lying, is still WRONG, BUT COMPARED TO A CHILD BEING FURTHER ABUSED, LYING IS THE LESSER EVIL.

And after the crisis passes, you well-meaning liar, will still need to admit your wrong-doing, and emphasize that you will make whatever amends you need to for your deception.

No where is any well-meant lie—itself--justified.

If only all humans would choose such moral realism, the vast majority of evil actions in the world would be lessened and eventually stopped.

Meticulous honesty, compassion, generosity, defense of human rights, etc. are ALWAYS RIGHT.

In the LIGHT of TRUTH,

Daniel Wilcox

The strange unethical world of Christianity and Atheism: SITUATION ETHICS

Here is a somewhat positive response to situation ethics by a leading Christian ethicist, based upon Augustine and Luthers' views--

FROM Baptist theologian Roger E. Olson's blog:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/
What Is “Situation Ethics?” What Should Be a Christian’s Response?
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018

"It was also the year that Episcopal theologian-ethicist Joseph Fletcher’s little book Situation Ethics: The New Morality was published."
"Later...I remember thinking that it was not actually as bad as I had been told. Its essence...the principle laid down by Saint Augustine “Love and do as you please.” (“Sermon on 1 John 4:4-12”)

"What I am suggesting is that there is some common ground between them and Fletcher’s proposal...As I recall, Fletcher portrayed all rules as flexible, able rightly to be violated in the name of love depending on the circumstances. I do not think Augustine or Luther would go along with that...Both treated love—as they defined it—as the sole absolute for Christian ethics. (Both tended to view justice as a form of love.)"

MY OPPOSING RESPONSE TO ROGER E. OLSON'S BLOG ARTICLE:
Wow, Fletcher's book! I read it in the late 1960's and was morally horrified. And all these years later, I still think that it is the worst book, ethically, of all the thousands of theological books I've read.
But let's get to your two Christian leaders (Augustine and Luther) who claimed to base their ethical decisions on love.

Augustine and Luther made many horrific immoral, unjust decisions based upon their Christian situational ethics.

If one judges their immoral, unjust actions based upon the concept of love as defined by 1 Corinthians 13, they didn't actually practice loving action at all, but the complete opposite. Check any history book for the many very immoral actions they justified with their ethical stances.

Their immoral statements and actions show the extreme danger of centrally basing one's ethical decisions on love and adjustable rules as they did.

BACK TO ANOTHER QUOTE FROM OLSON'S BLOG:
"As a Christian ethicist I am sometimes asked...what I think about “situation ethics.” I always insist on first discussing what is meant by “situation ethics” and explaining that if and insofar as it means discarding all ethical rules and norms except “love,” I am opposed to it. However, if and insofar as it means love reigns supreme over all rules, I have to admit it and say that I have Augustine and Luther on my side."

"Luther married Prince Philipp of Hesse to a woman while he was still married to another woman. He by default justified bigamy which was technically illegal (within the Holy Roman Empire) and almost universally considered immoral by Christians—both Catholic and Protestant."

MY SECOND RESPONSE TO ROGER E. OLSON'S BLOG ARTICLE:

HUH?! What a horrific example! Luther married a woman to a prince who already was married to another woman. That's a form of polygamy, bigamy.

Based upon Luther's justification of bigamy, I wonder if Roger E. Olson has an opinion of the recent adoptions of polyamory by some creedal Christians?*
It appears that some modern creedal Christians are basing their views in a similar way that Luther did in the case of his choosing bigamy for the prince.

However, what also troubles me about Luther's action is that he did this secretly.

As much as I strongly oppose the adoption of plural marriage by humans, I do appreciate that the creedal Christians who have done so have been public about it, not hidden it as Luther did in the case of Prince Philipp.

*I don't know what Roger E. Olson thinks on my response because he has deleted my comments from his website, like Atheist Neil Carter did in the past when I courteously disagreed with his unethical outlook, which also involves loving situational ethics.

Don't give into this blind, wrong dead-end path of situation ethics. Certainly NOT in the sense that Augustine and Luther did.

Seek the LIGHT. Live ethically.

Daniel Wilcox

Heartfelt Romantic Wedding Song - "Better Today" by Coffey Anderson

The Lady in Our Garden

The Lady in Our Garden

A picture-post-card date near the swirling
Serpentine sway of the wide Schuylkill River

Meandering through Central Philly's park garden,
Towered over by leaning elms, while 3 long canoes
Swift by to the paddling of Ivy League collegians.
Gazing at my dear companion in our garden

My Friendly girl, Karen, chestnut-caped round
In waist-length hair like a swaying black ephod,
Vivid in her red chambray shirt and blue jeans,
Is an aspiring concert violinist but converses
Passionately of King's March to D.C. in 3 months.
Listening to my dear companion in the garden

I, the principled drafted objector, work for Uncle Sam
With forsaken kids confined to sterile mental wards
Disturbed by parents' wrong living, but still am
So youthfully focused on my beautiful girlfriend’s
Figured shape than humanity’s ship of state.
Desiring my dear companion in our garden

We sit cross-legged on a wide lush parkway green,
Getting ready to eat our carefully bagged meal
Of 2 peanut butter and grape sandwiches
As we discuss war’s ravages in far-off Nam
And Bob Dylan's 'hard rained' croons.
Loving my dear companion in the garden

But then I inhale a fuming putrid odor;
Twist my neck and see this bagged lady in a filthy rag
Of a dress lunging slowly forward, hanging
Onto her ugly mesh of a shopping bag, her rancid
Stench to high heaven wafts and I pinch my nose.
Focusing instead on my companion in our garden

But lo and hold it! my violinist instead rises
And welcomes that old hag, “Hi Lady, will you join us
For our delicious Sunday snack here in the warm sun?”
The homeless alien sprawls haggardly on our grass,
Her wretched, spotted, shift wrinkling on her scraggly legs.
Karen gazes at this unknown companion in the garden

I am all upside-down in my face as this invader,
This illegal, reaches out a grubby, dirty hand,
Grabs one of our 2 sandwiches, and half crams
It in her narrow jaws, chews open-mouthed and teethed,
Me fuming at this chomping ugly interloper.
Separating my dear companion in our garden

But then awake, remembering almost too late,
The very old story about the least of these, turn,
And finally join my dear musician's psalm,
We a communing 3 of human kind,
Under those verdant swaying trees of compassion.
Sharing, so dear companions in our Garden


--Daniel Wilcox

First pub. in The Oak Bend Review
in different form;
in selah river, a collection of Daniel's
published poetry.



In the Light of Sharing,

Daniel Wilcox

Parsing Popular Song Lyrics

So many catchy tunes, music, as always in history, a central experience for the vast majority of humans...

This week have you avoided humming a song, or its instrumentation and lyrics playing in the background of your mind as you worked or relaxed or tended to the family and other concerns,
long after the actual musical experience had passed?

Doubtful.

And, then there are multi-millions of us humans who wallow in music in a wondrously deep way, captivated to the wiles of countless songs.

Who live in music like fish in water;-)

Which brings me to step aside from the recent political, philosophical, and religious articles...let's take a close look at a few current song lyrics, the only form of poetry most people ever engage in, and memorize with gusto, and carry like pulsating gems in their inner pocket.

Here's one that's a keeper even though the lyrics themselves aren't original, or creative--just your basic true love song.
However, unlike many modern songs the focus isn't on the male singer's selfish wants, or the physical characteristics of his sweetheart,
but on how her love is helping him to be a better person!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBZWsIq0w24

BETTER TODAY
BY Coffey Anderson

[Verse:]
To see your face, to hear your voice
And oh, to touch you is a dream come true
So I'm standing here, with my hand held out
Knowing that your love will never fade, I stand amazed without a doubt

My Commentary:
1. Beauty of the consonance of "face" and "voice" and "hear" and "your" are powerful even though the verse is almost greeting-card simple.
2. Pledge of fidelity in the last line even if unrealistic given that almost half of all marriages in end in divorce.

[Chorus:]
And I wanna hear your voice, in the morning when I rise
I think I know I'm just a normal man, only made of sand except when you're by my side
Will you love me, teach me, don't leave me I pray
And when I, and I'm thinking of the times
Your hands in mine, together we will stay
You made me better today
Better than I was before
And now my heart can rest and I will search no more
You made me better today, today, today

1. "Sand" plays sound-wise with "made" and "man," (consonance, again, and near rhyme), but what does it mean?
Rather intriguing. Maybe a take off from man of clay or earth?

So maybe Anderson is alluding to a spiritual/ethical element, about how his finance brings out the best in him?

[Verse 2:]
My heart has wings
Oh you take me away
And every prayer I've ever prayed was answered today
So I'm standing here, with my hand held out
Knowing that my love will never leave
My hearts on my sleeve and now I believe

1. "Heart has wings" is rather a common and traditional metaphor, but seems to work.
2. The repeated emphasis of his "hand" and her "hands" seems to emphasize the equality and commitment and permanence of their relationship.
3. Nice repeat/change of "heart." And the focus of "on my sleeve"--his honesty, transparency, and openness.
4. The repetition of religious terms including "prayer" and "I believe" gets a bit tiring,
though such language is often associated with romantic love in music tradition. What comes to mind is "I'm a Believer," by the Monkees, or "You Still Believe in Me" by the Beach Boys.

[Chorus:]
And I wanna hear your voice in the morning when I rise
I think I know I'm just a normal man, only made of sand except when you're by my side
Will you love me, teach me, don't leave me I pray
And when I, and I'm thinking of the times
Your hands in mine, together we will stay
You made me better today
Better than I was before
And now my heart can rest and I will search no more
You made me better today

[Verse 3:]
I stand proclaimed, true love is here to stay
I stand proclaimed, forever starts today
Today...
You made me better today
Than I was before
And now my heart can rest and I will search no more
Cuz you made me better today, than I was before
And now my heart can rest
And I will search no more
You made me better today
Today...
Made me better today.

--Written by Coffey Anderson, Mike Mani, Jordan Omley
--


In the Light of beautiful music,

Daniel Wilcox

The Debacle of Empty-Bucket Words

Like in the old days of English literature when books had really long phrased OR titles:

The Debacle of Empty-Bucket Words
OR
How I Learned to Love Humpty-Dumpty
by Shoving the Egg-Head of a “God” off the Wall
OR
How I Learned to Stop Using the Vacuous, Empty-Headed Term, “Love”

Preface:
“Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php

First, the last. I suppose for centuries, “love” has been empty-headed, empty-bucketed, meaning whatever any one in changing centuries applied to the term. Like all words, “love” that chameleon’d-squiggled-word changes in time and place and comes to mean whatever any particular human means it to mean.

Need I give many examples from history, literature, and media, especially movies, to show how ambiguous, contradictory, and empty-bucketed, “love” has been?

Heck, even Christian leaders can’t agree. Millions of them disagree about what “God is love” means. And some leaders get etymological, scholarly, and cite Greek, speaking of the over-inflated word, “agape.” But even in Greek, they don’t agree! (It's Greek to me;-)
Because even then they often mean something entirely different from other Christians.

For instance, Augustinian-Reformed Christians claim that God both loves and predetermines billions of humans to eternal damnation. What?! How could God lovingly torture billions of humans for ever?

And God "loves" some humans so much, he wills for them to get cancer, die in car accidents, drown, burn to death, and so forth!

OR take a look at how the Anabaptist leader Chuck McKnight claims that multiple sexual partner relationships—polyamory--are based in “love,” in “agape-love”!

Huh?!
According to McKnight, and others, the only rule of Christianity is “love.”

We've heard this before!

Paul Tillich, the famous Protestant theologian claimed, "Love is the ultimate law” while himself committing adultery, etc.
Tillich, Systematic Theology, v. 1, p. 152

And Christian ethicist Joseph Fletcher wrote an infamous, controversial book, Situation Ethics, in 1966.

It closed with this view:
“When the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the plane crew were silent. Captain Lewis uttered six words, "My God, what have we done?" Three days later another one fell on Nagasaki. About 152,000 were killed, many times more were wounded and burned, to die later. The next day Japan sued for peace. When deciding whether to use "the most terrible weapon ever known" the US President appointed an Interim Committee made up of distinguished and responsible people in the government. Most but not all of its military advisors favoured using it. Top-level scientists said they could find no acceptable alternative to using it, but they were opposed by equally able scientists. After lengthy discussions, the committee decided that the lives saved by ending the war swiftly by using this weapon outweighed the lives destroyed by using it and thought that the best course of action.”

Supposedly, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians was more loving in the long run and therefore more justified!

Whew…Talk about Orwellian…yes, war is peace, hate is love, slaughter is kindness…
--
LOOK at this STRANGE DIALOGUE BETWEEN JOSEPH FLETCHER AND A CONTRARY CHRISTIAN LEADER:

"This book is a transcript of the February 11, 1971 dialogue between Montgomery and Joseph Fletcher (who wrote Situation Ethics: The New Morality). Here are a few examples of their exchanges:

FLETCHER: "I think there are no normative moral principles whatsoever which are intrinsically valid or universally obliging.... If we are, as I would want to reason, obliged in conscience sometimes to tell white lies, as we often call them, then in conscience we might be obliged sometimes to engage in
white thefts
and white fornications
and white killings
and white breakings of promises
and the like." (pg. 15)

FLETCHER: “I want to suggest that methodologically there are basically only three alternatives strategies… the three options open to conscience at work are to be simply labeled as legalism, antinomianism, and situationism… In between these [first] two extremes lies situationism… and a mediating position in the spectrum. The situationist enters into troubling moral situations armed… [with] some reflective generalizations about what is ordinarily and typically the right thing to do. But unlike the legalist he refuses to absolutize … any normative principle… he is prepared to depart from a usually applicable generalization if in the particular case the consequence of following the rule is to minimize rather than to optimize … the first-order value to which he’s committed.” (Pg. 19, 23-24)

MONTGOMERY: “The insurmountable difficulty is simply this: there is no way… of knowing when the situationist is actually endeavoring to set forth genuine facts and true opinions, and when he is lying… Why? Because deception is allowed on principle … .as long as the ultimate aim is love. Consider: if Professor Fletcher acts consistently with his premises… he can to this end introduce any degree of factual misinformation, rhetorical pettifogging, or direct prevarication into the discussion… Our restatement goes: ‘If a situation ethicist … tells you that he is not lying, can you believe him?’… [This leaves] the audience entirely incapable of ever being sure that Professor Fletcher means what he says.” (Pg. 31-32)

MONTGOMERY: “This is precisely the claim of the historical Christian faith: that biblical revelation constitutes a transcendent word from God establishing ethical values once for all… Absolute moral principles are explicitly set forth; these inform love and guide its exercise.” (Pg. 44)

FLETCHER: “Are you saying, sir, that we must in conscience always tell the truth? And if there are exceptions, when might we prevaricate and why?... are you saying that tyrannicide is never justifiable? If it might be, when and why?... were you or weren’t you saying that interruptions of pregnancy are always wrong? But if there are times when it might be done, why would it be?... Christian ethics … have never allowed that human rights are anything but… relative and contingent.” (Pg. 49)

MONTGOMERY: “the greatest difficulty in situation ethics is revealed exactly at this point. The situation ethicist properly recognizes the ambiguity of situations and the extreme difficulty, often, in knowing what ought to be done; but he endeavors, in these situations, to JUSTIFY HIMSELF. In terms of the ethical approach that I outlined, one CANNOT so justify oneself. If, concretely, I were put in the position that you described of either informing a killer as to where a child was hidden or lying about it, it's conceivable that I would have to lie. But if I did so, I would be unable to justify this ethically; in short, I would be unable to get off the hook. In Christian terminology, I would have committed a sin which should drive me to the cross for forgiveness. This is what I find almost totally lacking in your writings: no one is driven to the Cross.” (Pg. 51)

FLETCHER: “you have said in reply to my question ‘Is it always wrong to have an abortion?’---‘Yes, it always is.’ It seems to me absolutely unbelievable that anybody could say that… Since the tragic complexities of life sometimes call us to do what we might call the ‘lesser evil,’ you WOULD be an instrument because the alternative to the abortion would be greater evil than the evil of the abortion.” (Pg. 52-53)

FLETCHER: “It is ethically foolish to say we ‘ought’ to do what is wrong! What I want to argue philosophically… is that the rightness or the wrongness of anything we do is extrinsic, relative, and dependent upon the circumstances, so that to have an abortion out of loving concern for everybody’s best interests involve, is not an excusably evil thing to do, but a good thing to do.” (Pg. 53-54)

FLETCHER: “And I have to say in all candor that when I examine the Gospel account of Jesus’ teaching in light of our question… he said nothing directly or even implicitly about it one way or another. Jesus was a simple Jewish peasant.
He had no more philosophical sophistication
than a guinea pig,
and I don’t turn to Jesus
for philosophical sophistication.” (Pg. 55)

MONTGOMERY: “Well, sir, I think that’s your trouble.” [Laughter and applause from the audience.] (Pg. 55)

FLETCHER: “Aren’t you in effect telling us that in your ethics we are sometimes morally obliged to do what is wrong, and does that make any sense in terms of ethical analysis?” [Applause from the audience.]
MONTGOMERY: “No, obviously it does not make any sense in terms of YOUR ethical analysis, but that’s what we are trying to determine---whether that ethical analysis is right… What I’m saying is that it may be necessary to choose a lesser of evils. But such a choice still remains an evil.” (Pg. 69-70) Situation ethics; true or false?: A dialogue between Joseph Fletcher and John Warwick Montgomery (Dimension books)
Quoted by reviewer Steven H. Propp on Amazon
--

Even the word "LIGHT" means various contradictory things to different humans, including different Friends.

No, we can't escape semantics, so it behooves us to very carefully define words when we use them. And give very lucid examples.

Daniel Wilcox

The Love Affair: Truth isn't a woman to be propositioned in a creed

The Love Affair

Truth is not a woman to be propositioned
In the bold demands of a harsh creed,
Treated like an object to ever mind;
Not for heaven's sake is she to be
Reasoned into compromising positions
By the forced logic of mental constructs;

She is not to be cornered or ever boxed,
Prosed short to a Procrustean degree,
Delivered in some barren decree
On Sunday morning from the patriarchal
Sharp verbal edges of a ridged pulpit’s dock.
She is no submissive wife or doctrinal concubine.

Rather Truth is a foxy lady
Hidden ever so in virgin-minded wilderness,
Light playing through the translucent leaves,
Who deeply wishes you in poesied verse
To propose, that your every cherished moment
Be a sparked endless epoch

Of tender talk, bedded conversation
Inflamed with love's pure passion
From much earnest kind-ling
In the fire place of poetic symbol,
Not dried logic and brained doctrine
But inner Hebrewed 'knowing.'

To woo this lady Truth,
Worship and kiss her
Intimately with Frenched
Intensity
Until the socks come off

And you two/too/to
Become
One
(Naked
And
Unashamed),
Full of light in
The true
Garden
Of
K
N
O
W
I
N
G.*



In the Light,

Daniel

First Pub. in The Clockwise Cat

Pin the Ban on the Valentine Heart: Romantic Love, UnIslamic

from the BBC News:
"Pakistan capital bans Valentine's Day"

"People shout slogans during a protest against Valentine's Day in Karachi, Pakistan.

A court in Pakistan has banned public celebrations of Valentine's Day in the capital, Islamabad, on the grounds that it is not part of Muslim culture.
The Islamabad High Court's order prohibits all Valentine's Day festivities in government offices and public spaces with immediate effect.
It also directs the media not to promote or cover Valentine's events."
--
It comes a year after Pakistan's President Mamnoon Hussain said Valentine's Day should be avoided...Last year local officials in Kohat, in north-west Pakistan, banned the sale of Valentine cards and goods, and Peshawar local council banned celebrations.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38958999
--

"In Saudi Arabia, Valentine's Day is banned by the kingdom's religious police.

Women and men sit separately in restaurants and public displays of affection are taboo.

However, some shops continue to sell red roses and other traditional Valentine's presents.

One shop owner described how Valentine's Day orders are placed over the telephone to avoid detection and flowers are hidden in the back of the store."

"Last August, the decision to sentence five Saudis to a total of 39 years in prison, as well as 4,500 lashes between them, was upheld.
The men had been found dancing with six women they were unrelated to on Valentine's Day. Alcohol and red roses were also seized."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/31382332/valentines-day-countries-that-dont-love-february-romance

Muslims need to lighten up.

Hopefully, you and your spouse are caring, cherishing,
and affectionate every day of the year.
Live your witness for love against such intolerance and arranged marriages.


In the Light of Romantic Love,

Daniel Wilcox

Remix: Babbling On, Again, River

*Remix: Babbling On, Again, River

Down by the time-out-of-mind, parched riverbed of Babeled loss,
Endless deserts in the stream and all the oaks of Bashon felled;
Yes, we lay down and lamented, drowned in canyon-wasted grief.

By the rivers of Babylon we lay down and wept,
Down upon the wine-soaked, weeping streams,
Up on the willows there, we hung down our lamented lyres

We remembered childhood’s delightful savor, a songed psalm
There, despairing, amidst burned hulks of the cedars, gaunt, stickly,
Hanged like forsaken, wind-blown, broken guitars of skin and bones,

By the rivers of Babylon we lay down and wept,
Down upon the wine-soaked, weeping streams
Up on the willows there, we hung down our lamented lyres

Stringless, passed-over balladeers of rifting sorrow and regret;
Yet despite the worst woes, and the obscene curses of power
With no oaked help on to which to hang our emaciated hopes,

By the rivers of Babylon we lay down and wept,
Down upon the wine-soaked, weeping streams,
Up on the willows there, we hung down our lamented lyres

We still spoke--seraph-serenading a tender, riffed “Shalom,
Peace be on you,” amidst their ‘popular’ trees of derision,
Hates, and damns; yes, despite all to sheol, we blessed enemies;

By the rivers of Babylon we rose up and blessed,
Down upon the wine-soaked, redeeming streams,
Up on the willows there, we sung out our laurelled lyres

We chose to live transcendent, streaming in the River of Life,
And to ‘rock’ our foes’ crying infants to gentle, tender sleep,*
Cradled in the infinite love of God’s mighty-welling heart.

Up in that eternal river flowing out of the heart of God,
Up upon the milk and honey'd rejoicing stream of becoming,
Up on the eternal Tree of Life, we sang the glorious truth


*A Remix of Psalm 137:9

-Daniel Wilcox

First pub. in Eunoia Review
in different form


In the LIGHT,

Daniel Wilcox

Deleting Empty-Bucket Words: God, Spirit, Love

For a long time, I and many others have been frustrated with 3 words: God, Spirit, and Love.

So much miscommunication with only 3 terms!

Because each of those words has so many different contrary meanings--so many contradictory fillings, that in articles, books, debates, group conversations, and dialogues, they almost mean
both nothing and everything.

Each is an empty bucket.

God, for instance, is a series of squiggles and a sound that various groups of humans pour/dump/force opposite stuff into whether it’s gold, pyrite, sludge, or manure.

And this has been going on for thousands of years among billions of humans in various diverse societies and social groups.

Repeatedly, when I’ve stated why I think God is real, atheists have belittled and denied the term as fallacious, while all sorts of religionists have strongly agreed and affirmed the Supreme Being.

But then confused chaos--semantic hell hurricanes up.

What the atheists and the religionists mean by the term is totally contrary to everything I think.

Indeed, often their negative or positive definitions of "God" are so horrific, they exceed all of my worst nightmares.

In the last couple of years, I have documented many detailed examples of this semantic confusion, this empty-bucket-ness. And it only seems to be getting worse.

While the basic definition in the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary:
"God: 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality,"
is denotative and open enough for myself, it doesn't work for many others.

Since, there is plenty of evidence already given on the confusions, I am going to jump right to suggestions for new terms.

God/Spirit:
Transcendent Reality, (or Ultimate or Essential) with an emphasis upon the concept that T.U.E.R. is “beyond” matter and energy.

Of course, already a few atheists have responded with the question what is “ultimate”?

That’s why I also mention “transcendent” and “essential,” and then recommend such questioners to the dictionary.

At least “ultimate reality” dispenses with the caricature that most atheists insist

the word “god” means—an “invisible super-omni-man in the sky.”

Where they got this simplistic, anthropomorphic view of God, I’m not sure,
but most theists don't think that is what God means.

I never thought God was an invisible powerful man in the sky,
not even when I was 8 years old, and a devout fundamentalist Baptist.

My new term will also, hopefully, unsettle religionists, and help them realize that I don’t believe in the God of creedal Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Hinduism.


Love: Compassion, empathy, kindness, benevolence, altruism.

When I say that all humans ought to focus on ultimate reality and be compassionate and empathetic to all others, hopefully, that will be more clear than the old words and phrases.

Wish me luck;-).

In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox