Spiritual dry spell?

Am I content? Or complacent?

I've lost the drive for knowledge though I am still passionate about learning. I don't desire to be deep anymore nor do I long for a spiritual high. You might say I've become quite earthy. I'm not interested in saving souls though it doesn't mean I don't care for people.

I have simply found that so much of what passes for the Christian message is nothing short of a multi-level marketing plan, a pyramid scheme, slick marketing, the essentials compacted into a slogan, parsed to fit onto a t-shirt. The idea of 'saving souls' sound like a career occupation, one where you obtain degrees, awards, certificates and notches on a belt with a 401(k) retirement plan in tow (often in the form of a book deal).

When we start seeing minister hocking commercial wares on television, as celebrity endorsements, we'll know the end is near. After all, we've got preacher superstars who draw thousands upon thousands to their shows, er, events, er services. Book deals, fancy cars, fancy clothes, huuuuuge churches, thousands traveling the country like following the Dead, abandoning the smaller churches for the Big Top.

I used to fall prey to the same thing only my response was rebellion, criticism, judgment. Yet the fuel was still that which I criticized. I have simply tired of it. So I am pretty much living the quiet life, seeking to truly be in the world but not of it, to learn to eat with the sinners and the wine bibbers, to be a true friend, not a saint, to be found in the form of a servant and not grasp at equality with God.

Wayne Dyer and the Dao De Jing...

Ok, the front page of Beliefnet, where I hang out (as if it's cool...) and debate Christianity (and, for a while, Islam) has Wayne Dyer giving advice on 'how to go with the flow' using the Dao De Jing as travel guide. Blech. It's like the difference between real maple syrup and Log Cabin syrup on your pancakes. Sorry, but it's pretty easy for Mr. Dyer to go with the flow. After all, he's been saying the same thing for years in repackaged formulas to the same people who buy his stuff and continue to fund his lifestyle. Not knocking him; he's got a gimmick that works (and, in essence, what he says is valuable).

I think I just tire of the guru thing, this cult of celebrity in the self-help and even in the Christian world. Come to think of it, the cult of celebrity is everywhere. Alan Watts was a celebrity and his fans flocked to him, his little haunt in Caliornia the 'in' thing to do spiritually. Hell, even they way Jesus is presented today he frequently resembles a superhero more than a saviour. Or he's turned into some kind of a guru where he begins to look like - you guessed it - the individual (or group) promoting Jesus' guru status.

Jesus is antihero/antiguru if we really read the accounts of his life in the New Testament.

When spirituality, whatever form, becomes hip it ceases to be relevant.

"When everyone knows good as good, this is not good." (DDJ, 2, Cleary translation)

Irony and Textual Argument...

We all know that the meanings of words evolve over time. A prime example is the word 'irony.' As made famous in Alanis Morrisete's song Ironic, she gives situations that are taken to be seen as ironic. In reality, according to the definition of ironic, these aren't. Coincidence, maybe, serendipity, maybe, they are more like what people used to call 'fate.'

What is irony? Well, to take off from Alanis' song, a man in fear of flying whose plane crashes on his first flight isn't irony. Irony would be a man afraid of flying choosing instead the safer route of driving who is killed by a plane crashing onto his car. Perhaps it is ironic that the lyrics in Alanis' song aren't ironic.

Another example of irony centers around the KLF. If anyone is familiar with their relatively brief but bright history, they might remember that the KLF (initials which stand for Kopyright Liberation Front, among others) were at the forefront of the copyright issue that is so explosive today. They borrowed stuff unapologetically beginning sometime circa 1987, though it was ultimately not without consequence. Their 'Chill Out' mix is a classic.

The irony is that in an effort to be subversive they became as popular as the artists and industry they were seeking to subvert. Is the irony that they became famous and became victims of the very same thing which they were doing? Is it irony if it is intentional? They set out to make a popular (in the basest meaning of the word) record by using a basic beat and really over the top meaningless lyrics sung sincerely, most blatantly in their use of Tammy Wynette for vocals. They succeeded. So is it ironic that they ripped other peoples' stuff off and here we are, twenty years, later, ripping off their stuff online? Or is that simply karma? Or were they prophetic?

Anyhow, people will fight over what the Bible says by quoting the King James Version of the Bible and then breaking down the English meaning of the word. But they are one step removed from the Old English usage of the word from which the KJV came and another step removed from the original Greek/Hebrew. So we are two steps removed from the original use of the word. Worse is when someone will argue from, say, the New Living Translation (which is but a paraphrase/interpretation moreso than a translation) and we are yet one more step removed. So we begin arguing over, quite literally, nothing, at least nothing in the sense that we are not fighting over what we think we are fighting over.

As time goes on, we begin to quote authors not close to the source but those who came later. And later. And later. I suppose that is why I will trace footnotes back to older and older sources in order to read what the original authors wrote. If I'm going to quote a recent author/scholar and am unfamiliar with his/her sources, how can I really understand what he/she is saying? There is nothing worse than arguing a point that isn't the point being made at all.

So where is the irony in this post? Probably that I am using so many words to argue about not arguing over words.

Theism and Daoism...

My interest in it seems to be waning. Does that mean I don't believe it? Or is it that my old notions of it are fading? I used to think of God as this mean ogre, this judgmental, punishing "being" always out to get me. As I've healed, and the feelings of guilt with it, the idea of God has taken on a new life. Less an intellectual construct now, less a childish image of "the big guy in the sky" kind of idea, 'God' is now something real, something present, transcendent yet immanent.

It is in this construct where both Theism and Daoism coalesce because we are moving out of the realm of ideas and imagery and into the real the New Testament calls the light that no man can approach and what the DDJ calls the gateway of marvels, the entrance into the mystery.

Perhaps at this Planckish point it doesn't matter. Perhaps what matters is the path leading up to this point. Perhaps it is in the realm of the imagery that guides us to this point that matters more than the actual point itself. For if the path is wrong, so too will the point be wrong and getting to the point without a path won't happen as every point arrived at is done so via a journey.

The other thing that I have noticed is that I tire of all the debates that occur in theistic faiths. I suppose the same has been done and even is done in non-theistic faiths (Daoism vs. Confucianism, for example), but the fighting over picayune details and the divisions that have occurred in Christianity (though Islam, Judaism and any other theism is not exempt from the same thing) over these details reminds me of what the Dao says about names. As soon as things splinter and are given names, we should stop as it will only get worse.

I am a Daoist at heart in the sense that I realize the limitations and trappings (and idolatry, if you will) of names, label, ideas and concepts. Ultimately we are fighting over the words, not what they mean. We are fighting over the flower or surface and not the fruit or substance (DDJ 38).

I'm sure there are Biblical injunctions to the same effect but can't recall any at the moment.

Kingdom of God within us?

"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21, KJV)

This is the favorite verse for those folks who don't go to church or attend anything bearing resemblance to "organized religion." It is the proof-text that we have the divine spark, that we don't need religion. It is the proof-text of the folks whose books are categorized under New Age and who frequently show up on the talk-show circuit (and best seller list) when they speak about Jesus.

Most recently I heard it quoted from the pulpit at the church we attend which caught me by surprise because this is not what the text is saying. Our pastor had noted that when we accept Christ the kingdom is within us. Yet this verse was given before Jesus died. There was no Christianity, no accepting Christ into our hearts, no Christ in us. No, he was still alive. Therefore, this doesn't make sense.

"...nor will they say, 'Look, here {it is!}' or, 'There {it is!}' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst." (NASB)

"...nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of (or within or within your grasp) you." (ESV)

Even the NLT, quite transparent in projecting interpretation as translation, renders this as among.

The term is entos, used only one other time, in Matthew 23:26, where it is translated as "inside." It can mean inside, within or interior and is used as such in the Septuagint. The word in Luke 17:21 could thus be translated as "within" but the key is to look at it in its proper context. Is it "within" in an individual sense or could it mean "within" in a more collective sense, i.e. "among"?

Look at the passage preceding it:

"Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed..." (v 20)

This passage is speaking of time, not location or position. When was the kingdom coming; what will be its signs? This refers to TIME. Jesus is simply saying, it is already present, not now, not later, neither here nor there. It is among you, it is right here, right now, though not completely. It is the now/not yet tension so present in the New Testament.

If Jesus is saying that it is already in us, then we have the divine spark and Jesus merely ignites that spark. There is no need for a new nature, no need for what he was about to do.

I think Luke is saying that we can experience, we can taste, the kingdom of God right now. It is here, among us, and access is available if we come to it with the faith of a child. But Luke is not saying it is inside of us as if it were our birthright. Luke's Gospel is quite pragmatic. When do we see the kingomd of God?

"...and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has come near to you.'" (Luke 10:9, NASB)

"But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." (Luk 10:20, NASB)

The "kingdom of God" that is hoped for in the future will have no sickness, no death, no sorrow, no pain. This power is available now. Christ is the harbinger of that sought out future kingdom and it is available in power right now.

It is among us.

The Dao and Christianity: Compatible?

In short, no.

Sure there are parallel sayings and on a philosophical and generic "religious" level similarities. To deny this is foolish. In fact, I often find the two merging at various points.

However, there is a big difference: in Christianity, God is personal. You pray to God, God communicates with people. God expects obedience. God expects a life devoted to Him. These expectations are absent from the overall framework of Daoism.

In Daoism, the Dao is impersonal. The Dao just is. You don't communicate with it, you don't pray to it, you don't hear its voice.

"We listen to it but do not hear it..." (14)

It is to your detriment if you don't follow the Dao but, though men exalt it, neither this nor obedience is ever commanded (51). In Christianity, obedience is expected and there are consequences established in the divine law established by a personal Creator. In Daoism, disobedience leads to destruction not from the consequences of a divine law but as a result of the "natural" order.

The closest parallel to this notion is the idea that there is a way "that seems good to man but its end is the way of death" (Prov 14:12, 16:25). As Wisdom the two share kinship.

And yet...

"This is called the formless form,

The substanceless image..." (14)

Sound familiar?

"Who is the image of the invisible God..." (Colossians 1:15)

"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person..." (Hebrews 2:2)

It is easy to see why those Christians who study Daoism and view it favorably contend that what Laozi and Zhuangzi were longing for is Christ, whose light shone through Daoism but whose time had not yet come. Laozi and Zhuangzi would have recognized the Christ of faith. In other words, Christianity adds "personality" to the Dao.

From the point of view of Daosim, however, all of Christian theology is, in the end, just words. Lots of them. He who knows does not say; he who says, does not know (56). So the more words, the more likely it is that less is being said. Words serve a purpose; however, I think Daoism provides a necessary corrective to the tendency in theistic theologies to idolize words and theories (though philosophizing, including the Daoist kind, in general has the same tendency).

Daoism is ultimately nameless (cf. Ch 32); Christianity believes that a name is essential (cf. Acts 4:12).

In the experience at the point where self is abandoned perhaps it could be argued that there is kinship which then dissolves into discussions of the perennial philosophy which may not be an essence but something ascended toward, i.e. it is a conclusion not a presupposition.

In Daoism there is no salvation, only return; in Christianity, there is no return, only salvation (though, perhaps the "born again" idea in Christianity is similar in the sense that we must "return" to a state of innocence to experience the true Way).

Other shared ideas would be that desire is the root cause of all evils in the world. In Daoism, as in Christianity, the true leader is the servant; true greatness comes in the least greatness; he who wishes to be first must find himself last; one must be soft and yielding in order to truly be firm and grounded.

Daoism's emphasis on these things might be a good reminder of the same ideas found in the Christian tradition as Christianity contains these ideas and then some though often these ideas seem to take a back seat as men, even Christians, seek power.

And the power sought by men in the world is a danger. Both Daoism and Christianity find agreement there. This world is only temporary. Better is it not to get bogged down in the temporal and superficial trappings of being human.

The wordless teaching...

For a teaching without words, it sure generates a lot of words. I suppose I should shut up.

Love in the Dao?

"I have Three Treasures;
Guard them and keep them safe:
The first is Love.
The second is, Never too much.
The third is, Never be first in the world." (67, Yutang translation)

Other translations speak of compassion, rather than filial love, though this is merely another angle of the meaning of the term. Mothers have compassion on their children, no matter what they do.

"Through Love, one has no fear..."

"For love is victorious in attack."

How? Becuase they are other focused. The common people's hearts and minds are that of the person of the Dao. So too in warfare. Not the attacker, not the initiator of warfare, merely the one in defense. It is in the yielding where victory comes as by yielding one's self, the Dao may be made manifest and the "other" may come to realization on his own.

"The best of men is like water;
Water benefits all things
And does not compete with them.
It dwells in (the lowly) places that all disdain --
Wherein it comes near to Dao." (8)

"The softest substance of the world
Goes through the hardest." (43)

A solitary drip of water will, over time, penetrate and break down a solid rock.

"There is nothing weaker than water
But none is superior to it in overcoming the hard.
For which there is no substitute.
That weakness overcomes strength
And gentleness overcomes rigidity,
No one does not know;
No one can put it into practice" (78)

And thus the paradox. Even Jesus speaks the same idea. And yet look at how difficult it is for men to lay aside the lust for power. But those who have used this approach have overturned empires, bringing those in power to their knees without the assertion of power in return.

Reversion is the action of the Dao...

I kind of burned out on the whole religion thing. I found myself reading Lin Yutang's translation of the Dao De Jing. I have about ten other translations, his is one I do not have. I think it had to do with the fact that he was a Christian (as was Wing Tsit Chan). Why would that matter? I suppose I was concerned with bias. And I can see traces of it in his translation (the terms 'God' and 'prophets' are found and seem out of place). However, that being said, his is a very elucidating translation.

"Rule a kingdom by the Normal.
Fight a battle by (abormal) tactics of surprise.
Win the world by doing nothing." (57)

Reading this I realized that fighting a battle is a concession. In other words, the idea of fighting a battle using tactics of surprise (what some call 'deceit') is not glorified as a command. The Normal is to rule a kingdom by by doing nothing.

"I do nothing and the people are reformed of themselves."

In other words, it is by moral influence (i.e. wu wei) that people are transformed.

The word for 'tactics of surprise' is ch'i, the same word translated as 'cunning' later in this passage:

"The more skills of technique,
The more cunning things are produced."

So in a state of warfare, things are abnormal and thus abnormal techniques are to be used. Chapter 30 breaks down the use of force quite succinctly. Force, weapons and soldiers are bad. However, they are sometimes a "regrettable necessity" (30). When soldiers are used the "best policy is calm restraint" (30). The goal is not territory, not power, not anything other than things returning to Normal. So the ruler/general must effect his purpose but that is all.

In conjunction with Chapter 69 it is quite clear that the use of force, though shunned, is for self defence only.

"I dare not to be the first to invade, but rather to be invaded.
Dare not press forward an inch, but rather retreat a foot." (69)

Yutang calls Chapter 60 'Camouflage' which is quite appropriate. This is not calling for passivitiy.

"There is no greater catastrophe than to underestimate the enemy." (69)

The call is for humility, not boasting, not aggression, not selfish motives. In keeping with the spirit of the Dao, by not contending, no one is able to contend. It is by displaying this humility, by yielding (which is not the same as surrendering or giving in), that one "wins" a conflict.

When an agressor attacks by displaying this yielding it tempers the desire of the enemy. When one fights back aggressively, the two energies feed on one another and a battle for power ensues.

Though there is a hint of Christianese in his translation of verse 67, it is quite fitting. The love here is not the same as the Biblical idea of love but is the love a mother has toward her children, a filial love. In that sense, there is a hint of affection of Heaven toward her children. And it is this that is passed on to others.

"If one forsakes love and fearlessness,
forsakes restraint and reserve power,
forsakes following behind and rushes in front,
He is doomed!

For love if victorious in attack,
And invulnerable in defense.
Heaven arms with love
Those it would not see destroyed." (67)

I fell into the stream of the Dao sometime in the early 90s. Here I am, over a decade letter, still captivated.

Closet Muslim?

I can rationalize and say that the Western media is biased toward Islam and the only reports given about Islam are the negative. On the flip side, there is the other extreme where Islam is completely removed from historical context and is whitewashed with claims of it being a tolerant religion whose real meaning is peace. Anyone who studies it's history knows that is simply not true, unless we redefine what is meant be peace. Peace, from the historical point of view, most certainly does not mean what we think of as peace today. Peace, from this point of view, does not mean live and let live.

With all of the atrocities being committed proudly in the name of Islam, why would anyone even consider converting? Why is it that Western converts frequently become anti-Western? Was it already present and thus a factor toward conversion? Or does it develop? I can't tell you how many websites I've visited of converts to Islam whose rhetoric becomes a diatribe about the West and its evils. They do not seem to be happy people.

So what is the hold Islam has over me? Well, Christian theology for one. And I'm not even talking about the cross of Christ. No, I'm talking about the theology derived from it. It divides. Some say this is a good thing, the wheat from the chaff. But how many denominations are there? How many heresies have there been throughout the history of the church and how many are there today? We spend more time fighting over doctrine than doing what Jesus said to do. That is my issue. I guess it's what human beings do. We like to know we are right.

So Islam's claim of the Oneness of God is appealing. The claim that all religions have strayed from the original Primal teaching is also appealing, especially considering my experiences with Daoism. The God-man thing makes Jesus sound like a supehero, a cartoon character. To promote this as the main message of the Gospel is something I cannot do.

Yet I cannot convert to Islam as it does not address the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. It denies it certainly. But by default, not directly. And, as such, the traditions of Islam are filled with fantastical, and ridiculous, stories of what happened. No, in order to become a Muslim I would have to deny the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. For whatever this means and however it is understood and interpreted, there is no way to do this without acknowledging the entire thing as a myth.

Islam just seems to me to be a very natural, very human, very fluid religion. Too much so. And that is the problem. You can create your own Muhammad, create your own Islam. You just can't tell anyone. So for whatever "islam" I hold in my heart, it is mine. And there will be no declaration of faith as I cannot deny what the Bible says about Jesus.

I may question what men say the Bible says but to deny the Biblical record wholesale? I don't think so.

Numbness...

Again. I seem to be spiraling into numbness, this gravitational pull down into the abyss.

The Dao of distraction...

My first truly "spiritual" experience was framed within the context of the Dao. I had been studying the Dao De Jing for a few years, quite intensely for several months, when I had an epiphany at the top of Yosemite Falls. Never had I been so alone yet never had I felt so completely at one with in the universe, as hippy dippy as that sounds. It was my entry into the path.

As I have learned, post epiphany was downhill. Why? Because I was more in tune with a deeper reality and had to shed the superficiality in which I was living. I did not realize just how much of a hold this had on me. And I'm not just talking about "stuff". I have never placed much emphasis on "stuff". I drive cars until they fall apart, wear clothes until they fall of my body, and eat pretty much the same boring thing day after day. I'm not glamorizing this as if I'm all saintly. No, I've never really much cared a whole lot. As long as I had the freedom to come and go as I pleased, that was enough for me. But even this can be a superficial hold, a distraction from reality.

And it is distraction that has been my biggest hurdle in terms of a truly spiritual life.

Even intellectualism can be a distraction, the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake nothing but distraction from dealing with life on life's terms.

So today I am distracted by my distractions. They have as of late cancelled each other out and I am left with empty space. I'm not used to the silence.

Ok, so I was feeling sorry for myself yesterday...

Sometimes it takes a day like yesterday to get perspective on where we are. By the end of the day I was really sick of me. So of course the message at church this morning was on the Kingdom. In other words, the satisfaction of one's life is in direct proportion to the focus on self. Complete focus on self leads to complete misery. A fulfilled life is determined by how much one focuses on others.

Now, without being centered (however you understand that), total focus on others can in itself be a selfish act, whether it is being done out of lack (and thus with expectation, no matter how subtle, of benefit) or with the motive of achievement. In other words, it really isn't about the other as the other is but a mean to an end and that end is self.

No, this other centeredness must emanate from a center and that center must be free of self. Only then does it work. Only then can you expand outwards towards other free of the pollution of selfish motives and, in return, receive back, without expectation but by a natural process, the true self.

Without getting all New Agey, Christ is the center and we reflect Christ to others; in return, by interacting with others, Christ is reflected back to us (our perception determining how this is seen). We are but mirrors for Christ. The "true" us is Christ. As Paul says, it is no longer "I" but Christ living in me. In this sense, the more Christ is in us the more "I" am Christ.

So, as usually happens, when we let it, God once again shows me up. Which is good. That means I was not too far out of alignment. A little corrective, a little forgiveness and a little humility and growth can once again occur.

Yes, loss of hope is really a failure to be grateful.

Bad day...

Nobody cares. Really. For the most part, every issue we face, everything we do, all that we accumulate and amass over our lifetime, all that we give away and contribute to amounts to diddly squat. Nobody cares.

I got jacked up at the plasma center today.

















(This photo was taken several days later but it gives a good idea of why I had to wear long sleeve shirts in the middle of summer...)

Put a hole in my vein, bled out around the needle, now, ten hours later, my arm is beginning to look blue. They stuck my other arm...nothing. Two hours, one waiting, one being prodded like a corpse, and ten bucks is what I get, five dollars for each stick. Unbelievable. And I probably won't be able to donate this week 'cause my arm is jacked up. I realized today what it feels like to be a commodity. Wow. It's bad enough I sell my blood for oil but just what this means became clear today.

It started with some dipshit cutting in line in front of me. No apologies, nothing, just stepped right up. It happens all the time, people whose lives are such that this is their assertion of power. So I let him. But it rattled me. It started me off. And of course when I was getting stuck he was in the bed right in front of me so I could look right at him.

And the very fact that I am stating this, looking at it, realizing just what my situation is, it saddens me deeply. How did I get here? How is it that this is somehow ok?

But I exercised damn it. I iced my arm for several hours, put a hot towel on it to try and bleed it out and I worked my back and biceps today. Kiss my ass, jackin' me up like that. Sorry I'm not too expressive today, profanity a substitute for some anger convoluted through poetics. I'm pissed. And tired. And I feel like I'm disappearing, like I could just vanish.

It's not even that no one would notice. I would just be gone. I'm partially there. Maybe what I really desire is that it just happen that way so I can be done with it. I'm basically a sponge, a consumer, taking, taking, taking. What do I contribute? Obviously nothing as my circle of influence is pretty small. Aloof, bored, arrogant. This is how I appear. And maybe this is who I am.

Everything seems stupid, in a pointless, futile kind of way, not in a way that I know so much better. Because I don't. But I am failing today to see the point.

I have no joy at the moment. Even my love for music fails to move me. It all seems boring. Have I lost faith? Have I no love? Is this what it means to lose hope? And it isn't because of the plasma incident. No, it goes much deeper than that. It's been coming on for years and I feel completely helpless to stop it.

It feels as if I am dying, slowly, rotting from the inside out. It will be a long time before my body catches up to how I actually feel inside. It's horrible to say these thing because from appearances, I've got it good. Good health, healthy family, a job (well, two...plus blood for oil), a roof over my head, food in my belly, reliable transportation, a right mind and relative freedom (except that irritating suburban groupthink thing).

And yet...

My last thoughts before going under the knife...

I had some minor surgery yesterday, a couple of lumps removed from my back. I wasn't aware prior to yesterday that I'd actually be anesthetized, figuring it was minor surgery with just a little localized numbing.

I've always asked questions, watched them when they stick me with the needle, always wanting to know what's going on (or in). So I was quite aware and present when they put the sleeping solution in. I was quite aware of the feeling that I was going under, the heaviness, the loss of motor functions. It's quite a cool feeling. I kept repeating, "I'm about outta here, huh?"

Anyhow, my last thoughts/words were "Thank you, Jesus." It was a warm, peaceful feeling, quite comforting.

I really do hope that what we are taught to and come to believe is true in the end. I really do hope someday to meet him and see the truth, knowing even as we are now known.

Headz...the file sharing debate...

So it's the weekend, Saturday morning, and I'm at work...again. I've just listened to Flunk's For Sleepyheads Only, a gem of an album that is a great way to mellow out. There's enough variety in the music to capture the many moods and rail them toward a singularity of pensiveness.

Next on the playlist was the Headz compliation from Mo' Wax records from the mid-90s. This thing is long out of print on CD and command upwards of $100 to obtain. I happened across it online and have this volume as well as Headz 2A (currently listed at amazon for $158) and 2B (not listed at amazon). Both 2A and 2B are being listed on ebay at the moment, 4 LPs each for a total of 8 LPs. Bidding is at $30. If I were to pay this price for any of these, I couldn't bear to listen to them because they cost so damn much money.

So I downloaded all three comps. Respect to the musicians and the record label. Reality check. The record label and musicians will never see another penny out of out of print merchandise. The only ones profiting on these now are the owners and ebay. The sad truth is I do not feel any remorse for downloading these.

In fact, had I not downloaded these I may never have discovered some of the artists on the package and sought out their other work, some of which I've actually paid money to obtain though obtaining them used, the artist/label won't see a dime of my money.

But I enjoy the music. It's some of the finest I've heard in a long time, especially in today's musically sanitized bubble filled with corporately cloned imitation of music. It's a throwback to the time when the beat actually meant something. So I rave about the compilations and, more significantly, the musicians.

So in terms of file sharing. It's no different than swapping vinyl as a teenager in the 80s or sharing cassettes or copying an LP onto cassette for a friend. It's just that as technology has changed and become more efficient, the methods of copying and sharing has also gotten more efficient. The Internet has merely taken what has been a rite of passage and put it on an infinitely greater scale. Now the little that the record companies lost by friends trading tapes has increased to a worldwide market of individuals on an anonymous scale.

Everything in this day and age is exaggerated. File sharing is no different. And I avoid Morpheus, Limewire and the rest like the plague. It's easy pickin' for lawsuit hungry record company lawyers. There are other means of downloading that avoid this route altogether.

So I agree, support your favorite artists. If at all possible, go see their show (though, again $50 and up for a ticket is about a day or more's wage for most fans). Buy their merchandise, hopefull from their own site, if available, where they may reap the most benefit. The day is coming when the means of distribution will no longer be in the hands of the few but will, for the savvy musician, be in the musician's own hand to distribute as seen fit.

My personal favorite idea is this: if you download some music, send the musician/band a check directly.

Why am I not a Muslim?

Here is how I perceive the difference between the two faiths.

Islam is natural. It is easy, recognizable, something of a "yeah", what the Qur'an calls a Reminder. It is like a homecoming, something you intuitively know but it is spelled out for you. That is why it is called "reversion" instead of "conversion." The signs of God are all around. Look at nature, the pattern of night and day, the growth of plants and all the natural phenomena. The Qur'an states that everything has been created in pairs, either in the sense of mates, male and female, or in the sense of the sphere of duality within which man operates (e.g. dark/light, good/bad, right/wrong, etc.). While there are some proscriptions in the Qur'an that are difficult to accept, the overall theological picture is quite simple.

Christianity is not natural. At least not on the surface. It isn't a homecoming. It is a complete rupture of what we think of when we think of God. Trinity. Incarnation. Death of God. The God-man. All these concepts Christians trumpet proudly are actually disruptive both in the sense of causing a complete change in our worldview and also in the sense that they are a distraction from the true essence of the message of Jesus. The theology is not easy. It is not a "reversion." It is almost unnatural, thus the reason so many Christians seem to look down on nature, both human and in the world at large. No, Christianity is a constant struggle.

So why not Islam? Obviously, it sounds appealing. There are three reasons.

1) Muhammad. I have no idea who he was. With all that is written about him, you can basically pick and choose and create your own Muhammad. Simple man, fixed his own clothes, allowed his wives to talk back to him, gentle with children, submissive to God. Or he was a war monger who was interested in power and used religion to obtain it. And just about everything in between. There is more written about Muhammad in the traditions attributed to him than there are about Jesus. And it is impossible to really know who he was. The "living Qur'an"? Well, if I can't understand him, how can I understand the Qur'an? I can't as I will interpret it according to my experience.

2) Aisha. Tradition asserts that she was six when betrothed to Muhammad, nine when their marriage was consummated. He was in his fifties. I don't care about the culture of the time. That is deeply disturbing. Even if we question the sources and bump her age up into her teens, it's still peculiar. Either those who told the tale that she was six or nine were projecting their own culture onto Muhammad or it happened as it has been related. And the fact that there are questions surrounding it verify my issue #1.

3) Beating your wife. Surah 4:34. Not much to say there. Unless that is reinterpreted and shown to be wrong and accepted by the majority of scholars to mean something akin to "separation" then the verse in the Qur'an is horrible. Period. No matter how we reason it out. Even acknowledging that it was perhaps a limiting verse on previous practice, it is still bothersome that it is in there, spelled out that clearly. Truly it gives permission to the husband. And, human nature what it is, will not be seen as a limitation but as a command.

Those are the three primary reasons I am not a Muslim.

Why am I a Christian?

1) Jesus. Plain and simple. I have never encountered a figure of his stature. And this isn't buying into the God-man thing. That doesn't interest me a whole lot. I have found that wherever it is that we go in our spiritual journey, from the highs to the lows, Jesus is there. He is us. He is our mirror. When we look at him, he reflects back to us who we really are and we thus ascend toward being like him.

For every injustice, trauma or damage we suffer, he was crucified. Perfect love. Sinless. Human with a capital "H". He taught us how to love. He has shown us the love of God. He has shown us God. In his person.

Even if we argue that the New Testament is corrupt and all the other attacks of critics, there is still a very clear and precise picture of who Jesus is. We may differ on some points but overall, this picture is clear. And this picture is of a man that you wish to follow. By following in his footsteps, by doing what he says, you begin to see what it means to really follow God, to really love and to really love.

It is paradoxical and it turns your world upside down. And in doing so you become more and more like Jesus; you become more and more human. And in doing so, God becomes a very real presence in your life.

Surah 4:157 (Part II)

So how to reconcile Christian belief with that of Islam? It can't be done, though the tales in Islamic tradition of Jesus being raised are actually the closest we can come. But these traditions are non-sensical and require more faith to believe than those of the Christian claims.

No, what the Qur'an says is that the Jewish boasts are false. The crucifixion never happened. Crucifixions happened (and the Qur'an claims this happened during Egyptian's heyday which is another story altogether) according to the Qur'an. But not to Jesus. The Jews falsely believed this and their bragging of it is false.

If in fact the Qur'an is speaking about Christians in this verse, it could only be if Christians were calling the Jews of the region "Christ-killers" (something easily found in the Christian historical record) and the Qur'an is refuting this claim.

But the verse is not a historical account of what happened. It is apparent that Jesus was persecuted, as Muhammad was persecuted, as all Prophets have been persecuted, but there is no interest in validating Christian claims that Jesus was crucified. The Qur'an does not answer what happened to him. It does not answer what happened to any of the Prophets prior to Muhammad. He thus died (cf. Surah 3:55). The 'raising' in question (rafa'nahu, phrases also used in 19:57, 4:158 and 4:172) is exaltation of status which Muhammad Asad renders as "whom We exalted."

So what happened to Jesus? The Qur'an does not say. The question remains unanswered. All answers to the question come from outside the Qur'an and/or are interpretations of what the Qur'an says. But the Qur'an itself is essentially silent on the matter.

The Qur'an does not speak of a Docetic/Gnostic Jesus. It does not speak of another person dying on the cross for Jesus. It does not speak of Jesus being raised alive to heaven. No. The crucifixion did not happen. Period. Jesus, as all Prophets before him, spoke his message, was persecuted for it, and kept a gathering of disciples (i.e. muslims) true to his word who carried the message forth.

This is perfectly consistent with the Qur'anic ideal. Any paths to dialogue begin here.

This idea troubles Christians greatly. How can there be such little interest in the Jesus of the Christian faith? One verse lays aside the crux of the Christian faith? One verse? That's it? It's maddening to the Christian. So Christians read back into the verse the aberrant theologies floating around in regions of Persia/Arabia as an explanation of the verse, Muslims retort, developing elaborate stories influenced by and in response to these Chrisitans claims and the convoluted Islamic Jesus develops.

On the flip side, Muhammad begins to take on the characteristics attributed to Jesus. This shows not only the influence of Christianity on the traditions that would develop about Muhammad but also show the phenomenology of how a tradition about someone developes.

It can be argued, and often is, that a similar process occurred in the deification of Jesus though Christianity did not have the safeguards preventing this from occurring and thus the development of the Trinity in order to maintain monotheism. But that is another story.

Surah 4:157 (Part I)

So how do I reconcile the cross with this Surah from the Qur'an? In reality, it's not possible. The Qur'an categorically denies that Jesus died on the cross; thus there is no resurrection.

However, the curious thing about this is that resurrection, prior to Christianity, at the latest, and perhaps during the time in which Daniel was written (accepting the belief that at least part of Daniel was written during the Hasmonean period) at the earliest, there was no belief in the resurrection in Judaism. Perhaps it existed in other religious traditions in some form or other but that did not become manifest, and this differently, until around the time of, and explicitly after, Jesus.

So if in fact this was the message of all those who came before Muhammad, it makes me wonder how it is that the resurrection has always been taught yet is completely absent from the earliest layers of Judaism. And does this mean the Qur'an validates other religious traditions that had a similr belief, such as that of Zoroastrianism and even Buddhism with its belief in reincarnation (arguably, on this premise, a distorted version of the idea of resurrection)?

Anyhow, back to the question at hand. Christian polemicists see in verse 157 a historical account of the events at the cross. It is implying that, no matter how skewed from the main body of Christian belief (i.e. a 'Docetic' gnosticism), the Qur'an actually validates Christian belief, on some level.

This isn't to deny the influence of a 'gnostic' type of Christianity on the Qur'an's view of Jesus (there can be no doubting that whatever Christianity was present in the Hijaz region, Jesus giving life to the birds is found in the Qur'an and in the gnostic writings). But verse 157 is not giving a historical account of what happened.

And Muslim commentators have fallen prey to the same thing, thus their elaborate explanations as to what happened to Jesus. There are many views of what happened to him, the most commonly promoted one being that Judas was placed on the cross in his stead which thus makes Judas a type of hero, a martyr, willingly laying down his life for Jesus.

But this is false also. The influence of Christianity really shows in the commentaries. It is through the commentaries that the idea of Judas being substituted enters in. It is not inherent in the Qur'anic text itself. It is read into the verse and is almost impossible to extract a different meaning once this view is held.

But look at the context of the passage. Beginning in verse 153, it is the Jews about whom the Qur'an speaks. It is not addressed to the Jews (as the Qur'an is for the hearers of Muhammad) but is speaking about the Jews. This continues to verse 162. Verse 157 falls right in the middle of this. It is speaking of wrong views and actions of the Jews; it does not speak of Christian belief. In other words, it simply says they (i.e. the Jews) did not kill Jesus though they brag that they did so, killing him as they had killed other Messengers before. This is the claim the Qur'an refutes.

What "appeared to them" was the event that Jesus was crucified. The Qur'an is silent on what actually happened. When verse 158 says God raised Jesus to himself, this is not a physical raising. That idea is more absurd than the Christian claim as Jesus would physically be alive somewhere in space. This is not the new "glorified" body of which Christians speak but a flesh and bones, earthly Jesus physically residing somewhere in the universe.

And even if, as some claim, the raising was of his soul, that would mean his body died which begins to sound like the Christian claim that his body died on the cross and he was raised alive. It radiates the influence of Christian theology and thus the Muslim scholars' attempted response to these claims.

Surah 19:57 uses the same phrase in regards to Idris (believed to be Elijah). So if Jesus was raised bodily (or even soulically) to heaven, so too was Idris. This, of cousre, is not believed. So why is it believed this is what happened to Jesus? Christian influence.

And of course this opens the door to all the other traditions that are derived from this idea, from the second coming of Jesus (coincidence?), the Dajjal, Gog and Magog, and Jesus dying after a certain period of time when re comes again. That would mean he is 2,000 years old.

What happened on the cross?

I hear it said frequently that God died on the cross. Then I hear the next statement that God in Christ died on the cross. Or that Jesus' human nature died on the cross but his divine nature didn't. There are a million different variations on this theme.

But it hit me in church today that what happened on the cross was the door shut when Jesus died. That open door to heaven, that immediate access to God through Jesus closed when his heart stop beating. That was the darkness spoken of in the Gospel accounts. God was still in the world as there is nowhere He is not but what happened there on Calvary is that intimacy, that intensity, of God present in full through the fleshly being of Jesus was gone.

God was intimately present in Genesis. Over time, as the Biblical writings attest, God is more and more distant from His people. Yet the Second Temple period is not silent; the "400 years of silence" of which Christian tradition speaks is a myth. No, the literature of this period of time is immense. The Nag Hammadi caves attest to this. So they were looking, seeking, asking, writing amidst the continuous confusion their lands being swarmed with invaders, from the Babylonians to the Greeks to the Romans, a whirlwind in which the Jewish homeland was caught.

So he was sought in a Book, in the Word, both in the Hebrew writings and the Greek philosophy that had made such inroads. And here comes the Christian claim that God Himself was found not in a book, not in philosophy, but in a person. God, in fullness, dwelling in and through Christ. It was if you could look into Jesus and, seeing through him, see God.

This was what was closed when he died on the cross. The stories of him lived, books about him were written and the Holy Spirit is ever present within the hearts of believers making Jesus very real and very present in their lives. But these are growing pains, both of the individual who accepts this call, and that of the world as a whole made up of the individuals who accept the challenge to follow him and make him real in the world.

But on the cross that door was closed. To those who witnessed it they sensed that communion with God has been broken, that there was a rift in the universe.

And then there is the resurrection. Jesus, no longer entangled in the likeness of men, is free from the fetters of death. He is the resurrection; he is the new life; he is the firstborn from the dead; he is the Alpha and the Omega point of this new creation, restoring the original creation that men had lost.

He has opened us a new door into the heavenlies, having entered the Holy of Holies, his life, his sacrifice, his blood, the completion and perfection of all that the Law desired to do in men. There was nothing left for men to do; he had accomplished all that men could ever hope to achieve, all that men longed for in the deepest parts of their bowels. He is now priest, king, lord, all of those titles given to lesser men as "types" of what Jesus was to become.

So God did not die on the cross. Jesus died on the cross.