Interview with Dennis McKinsey

Bio material: Dennis obtained a bachelor's degree in philosophy in 1962 and a master's degree in the social sciences in 1964 from the University of Indiana. Served as a high school teacher and guidance counseler, and also taught at the college level. Published a monthly periodical entitled BIBLICAL ERRANCY (1982- 1999) with myriad subscribers world wide. The periodical invited meaningful debate and intelligently underscored the wisdom of deep doubt in a world run amuck with aggressive blind faith. It was subcaptioned: "The only national periodical focusing on biblical errors, contradictions, and fallacies, while providing a hearing for apologists."

Two of Dennis' books THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL ERRANCY (1995) and BIBLICAL ERRANCY: A REFERENCE GUIDE (2000) were published by Prometheus Press.

Dennis has appeared on numerous radio call- in programs throughout the nation including KBRT, Los Angeles, WOAI, San Antonio, WLW, Cincinnati and WWKB, Buffalo. Between 1994 and 1998 Dennis created no less than 100 half hour programs for cable TV, effectively extracting the essence of his landmark, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL ERRANCY.

While The Church at Paronomasia is panentheistic in outlook/inlook (not atheistic), it salutes C. Dennis McKinsey as one of the great champions of reason, a man to be honored and remembered as a sane voice in a largely insane world.

CONTACT INFO:
Email Address: Klomckin@ameritech.net
Website: http://members.aol.com/bloomfld
rometheus Books: 1-800-421-0351

Q1- Dennis, is it possible for someone to accurately describe himself/ herself as an atheist and still believe in the possibility of life after death?

A- No

Q2- Can you explain why, in your viewpoint, disbelief in Intelligent Design is more rational than belief?

A- This question lies outside the scope of biblical errancy. That question would take a lot of writing to fully answer.

Q3- What do you see as the single most tragic element of monotheistic religion's continued popularity in the world today?

A- The propagation of the superstition that there is some benevolent Almighty Being taking care of your welfare and concerned about your future who will reward or punish you some day for your behavior.

Q4- How might competing anthropomorphic religions be prevented from destroying the world?

A- Eliminate or drastically reduce the influence, power and control of the competitors.

Q5- What do you believe is the kindest, most positive thing we can collectively do as human beings to help assure a less dangerous, more benign planetary future?

A- Always put the welfare of others above that of yourself and always work to leave the world in better shape than you found it."

BIO: Mark Monlux is an award-winning freelance illustrator who, for over two decades, has provided images for companies like MicroSoft, Kimberly Clark, Reynolds & Reynolds, Workman Publishing, Strategyn, Hewlett Packard, Darigold, Eating Well Magazine, Blue Cross, Mead/Johnson, Caldwell Banker, the March of Dimes, and a host of independent businesses, agencies, and broadcasters. His creativity, imagination, and cheerful cartoony- style have endeared him to many including the Church at Paronomasia. Mark produces several web comics (available on his magical website: http://www.markmonlux.com).

Q1- First off, Mark, thanks so such for the great job you did with the site's comic art. Many appreciate it, and a few don't: for example, one prominent Seventh Day Adventist teacher was so offended by the 'God Peeing' homepage, she accused me of blaspheming her Heavenly Father'. Although I tried to explain that I was criticizing the dangerous 'god' of anthropomorphic projection (not a Loving Supreme Being), she remained outraged. What would you say to her?

A- When it comes to potty humor, I don't think that god is easily offended. But, she probably would remind me to put the seat back down.

Q2- Which comic art entry was your favorite to create and why?

A- The image of Lot in a drunken orgy with his daughters. It is the job of a cartoonist to take a subject and stand it on its ear so that the viewer is able to take a look at it from a new vantage point. While I find incest horribly- offensive, and incest- inspired pornography deplorable, I was intrigued by how storytellers too often end the story of Lot at the point where his wife is turned into a pillar of salt instead of continuing on to where two sisters getting daddy drunk, so that they could have babies.

I had to work through my own prejudices on the subject matter to depict what should be a revolting image, into a comic one. And while many will be offended at first glance, I achieved my objective and am proud that I was able to work through the process to achieve that objective.

Q3- Did you experience any particular emotions in working on 'The Tomb of the Collateral Damaged' ?

A- Sadness. Specifically the tiny spark of empathy one feels when only slightly touched by a distant tragedy. I reviewed when I personally felt such a spark and the image of driving down a highway and seeing roadside memorial with molding teddy bears and plastic flowers came to mind. I applied the same imagery to the image.

Q4- Is a world of libertarian world peace (in which irreverent writers, cartoonists, artists, and poets remain unabashedly free to create) a likelihood in our life time? Why or why not?

A- On the most simplistic level, the ability to be unabashedly free to create will never exist. It's human nature for people to have differing opinions. That goes for the creative and the non-creative alike.

Q5- Mark, what do you believe is the kindest, most positive thing we can do as human beings to help assure a less dangerous, more benign planetary future?

A- Pick up litter. I know it seems a daunting task, but every time I go out on a public street I make a point of picking up some litter. It's a simple, easy and direct way for you to affect the earth, make a statement, and change your mindset. You can make a difference, even a little one. Others can see this example. And it exercise that atrophied muscle of giving-a-damn.

Bio: Freda Mooncotch is a perennial student of religion and the creator of the website http://www.alphawomen.com .
Her intention in creating the site was to make a (safe) space for "strong modern women" to learn from each others' stories and experiences, and to express their opinions in a positive environment.

Freda can be reached through the website.

Q1- You've said, "It is funny how religious fanatics stand on their mighty hilltops in their glass houses, and with self- righteous indignation scream down at the rest of the world, yet they seem to be the biggest hypocrites of them all." ...While it's true, Freda, that most of us have had the displeasure of making the acquaintance of this kind of person, isn't this a spectacular generalization you're making here? Aren't there just as many or more religious people who are honest and in a way "humble" but who have taken their judgmental, fire and brimstone scriptures far too seriously and therefore gotten caught up?

A- Someone once asked me what I thought about being a Christian and I said I always wanted to meet one! Christ preached tolerance, love for your fellow man, helping people, not just to the elite but to all of mankind. Whether or not every human being accepts his invitation is a matter of free choice and human will. The sad thing is as it is with many people, when anyone tells me they are a Christian, I run. I think I know only about a handful of people who truly are Christians and really "do unto other's as they would do unto themselves."

Usually the only humble people I know don't run around pointing fingers or passing judgment, they just live their lives to the best of their ability and treat people kindly. They walk the talk, yet they really don't talk, it is just who they are. (Mathew 25:37)

Q2- You've said that these same sorts of persons (the screaming, self- righteous hypocrites) feels so horrible about themselves and their lives "they have to constantly judge and criticize her, so that they can feel better about themselves." So, what might help these folks to lighten up and how can we help them?"

A- They are their own worst enemy; they truly don't understand truth in the gospel. My favorite story is the one where they wanted to stone Mary of Magdalene and Christ bent down and started writing in the sand with his fingers and said, "You who is without sin, cast the first stone." They each turned and walked away. Judgmental people don't really believe they are without sin. They surround themselves with people who they perceive to be messed up and gloat at their mistakes and losses and falsely elevate themselves to a higher state. These are the ones who really want to be a part of an "elite" group where it is only open to a select few and not to everyone which is the opposite of what Christ manifested throughout his life. (Matthew 25:31-46)

I have no idea how you help someone who is so incredibly deceived by their own image of themselves. They have a false sense of security and are actually anti-Christian. It is clear in Romans chapter two how God feels about the self-righteous.

Q3- "The Tibetan Book of the Dead" (a famous Buddhist offering) makes the startling claim that the root cause of samsara (the reincarnational birth and death) is a child's attraction to the parent of the opposite sex. Does this sound true or untrue to you?

A- I don't get into that stuff. I don't believe in reincarnation not in the sense that the world believes it to be. If you are talking about being "born again" the way the bible discusses it, well that carries an entirely different meaning. Being born again is throwing off the old ways of your life and choosing to "die" in Christ. One of the most beautiful confessions ever made by the apostle Paul in Galatians 2:20, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I live, but Christ lives within me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." You see Christ didn't come here to increase our burdens, but to relieve us. From the beginning of Biblical times, it was the Holy Trinity's will to infuse the Jewish nation as God's show piece to the rest of the world. They were to be beacons of light to draw the gentiles into the Kingdom of God.

The Jews continually screwed that calling up and continually glorified themselves which was the direct opposite of what God and Christ intended. The message of Christ in YOU and YOU in Christ the Hope of Glory in ever facet of the Jewish religion (The Old Testament) pointing to Christ and his coming. The symbolism is paramount, from the sacrifices to the sanctuary lay out and ceremonies to the Day of Atonement it was always the message of Christ. The Jews distorted that message.

In the Jewish nation there was a promise. God exuded them and gave them rules to live by that would exalt them in every aspect of their lives and they did! But some how that got to their head and they lost the message of embracing all people, giving ALL people hope, (Matthew 11: 28-30) reconciliation and the knowledge that they were ALL God's children.

I am a Bible person. I still believe in the Bible. When I read the Bible, I don't see messages of hope for all of mankind, not to just a select group of people. God has the same message for every stinking person on His great big planet. These people need to embrace the fact that they are "wretched, naked, poor, sinners," just like the rest of the lot. There aren't categories for sinners: A sinners, B sinners, C sinners. Sin is sin, and we all fall short of the Glory of God because of Adam and Eve. No matter how good we think we are, we are ALL falling short of God's rule stick the Ten Commandments.

That is what the Ten Commandments were given for, a standard; so that humanity would realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE on our own accord to live by these rules. That is why we are born again and continually say to ourselves Galatians 2:20. "I am crucified with Christ……" Holy shit, I mean if you think about sin in your mind it is SIN. You don't even have to actually do it! I don't know about you, but I am sinning in my mind in my fricken sleep!

In Romans chapters 2 Paul really lays into self-righteous people, but really all of Romans is God's message put into the best, most thorough terms. Remember it was the self-righteous who ultimately crucified Christ because they couldn't accept his message that they were sinners just like the gentiles.

There is a war between Satan and the ¼ of angles that he took with him and heaven. God couldn't just kick Satan out of heaven without explaining to the rest of the angles what happened. The remaining angles would have been serving out of fear. The cross was the final revelation to all of Heaven and earth that Satan was a liar and that God was just in stripping him of his heavenly credentials and kicking him out of heaven. Up until the cross, all of eternity was judging God. It was the cross that revealed to heaven the truth about Satan.

The message behind the cross wasn't about the PAIN that Christ went through, the emphasis so many place today on Easter Sunday, it was even bigger than that. Christ was willing to DIE, be eternally separated from his Father whom he LOVED more than anything in this entire world for YOU and I. He was willing to die the eternal death that was supposed to be experienced by Adam and Eve when they ate the fruit from the tree of good and evil. Remember, Adam and Eve weren't supposed to ever experience death, death came as a result on their sinning and was passed onto us.

That is why there is the need for a resurrection. If you are not founded in Christ, if Christ is not your attorney and you plan on representing yourself, GOOD LUCK CHUCK! Remember the parable of the guest who showed up at the Kings party in his own robe? By the way, the judgment isn't God putting us on trial for our good and bad behavior; it is Satan trying to take as many people with him as possible. Satan will be playing video's of our lives and asking the question, "Why does he/she get to be saved and I have to suffer the eternal death?" God's response will be because he was perfect in my Son Jesus.

Remember Satan was the first to reject God and Christ. He wanted to be God. God can be just when he saves people because they are in HIS SON who lived a perfect, selfless, sinless life. People who get this are incredibly humbled by it and realize that when they hold a mirror up to themselves they are sinners and it is only by the grace of God that they have any chance of salvation. See Matthew

As far as I am concerned, there will be loads of people who for the first time in their lives will hear the name and message of Jesus Christ in heaven. They lived their life according to the little light that they had. See Romans 2:14 & 15 as well as many other places in the bible indicate the same thing.

Q4- Does the God you know and love (assuming there is one) feel more female or male to you?

A- God is all consuming, he represents both male and female. I could really care less if he is black or white, male or female, Indian or American, the message is what is most important to me.

Q5- Freda, what would you say is the kindest, most positive thing we can collectively do as human beings to help assure a less dangerous, more benign planetary future?

A- First, Christians are supposed to be people who represent Christ here on earth. If more Christians behaved that way, WOW what a testament to the rest of the world that would be. Christians are called to be the light unto the world, that doesn't mean you burn people with fire and brimstone. I think we could all behave more like Mother Teresa and Angelina Jolie and Princess Diana we could really do some positive damage. That being said, the Bible is pretty clear that Satan will prevail over the earth and more and more you are seeing a great deal of people getting more base. It is a "me" society and everyone is vying for their 15 minutes of fame.

It is scary. The media elevates nasty behavior as acceptable and normal. I just try to live my life the best that I know how, I fall short constantly, I am in no way perfect, I have great friends to remind me when I am an ass and I apologize frequently. If everyone took care of their own back yard or the planks in their eyes, they wouldn't have time to find the "specs" in others!

Interview with Paul Schmidt

Q1- What is the meaning of life?

A- The question makes me feel like I'm in a Monte Python interview or living again in California at the foot of Mount Shasta. Good! That works!

The meaning of life? On the one hand, there are those who believe that existence precedes essence and will say we entirely create our own meaning, and that there is no a priori reality per se. On the other hand, there are those who have ever- so- presumptuously interpreted essence's alleged directives as being one with the dictates of their ridiculously- anachronistic religious superstitions (The Koran and the Bible come to mind), and unfortunately, this includes at least a few billion 'true believers' prowling the planet as fundamentalists.

But, no, I'm neither an atheist nor an agnostic anymore, having had a great many mystical and paranormal 'direct connection' experiences which have successively initiated new perceptions in me. And, yes, I do have a strong sense that there's some sort of divine plan unfolding, though rather obscurely and awkwardly, I must admit! At the end of the day, I must propose a toast to the great German poet Rilke who simply intuited God as "a positive direction" The dance of faith and gnosis informs me internally that the meaning of life involves the evolution of practical kindness, inspiration and love- for instance, the sort which mobilizes global consciousness for the Cause Celebre of church/ state separation.

Q2- Is there a God?

Whether there is or isn't (and I'm convinced there is), the more important question is: how can we stop tormenting and slaughtering one another in the name(s) of God?

A- True spirituality has perrennial promise, but, given the historical evidence, I think it's safe to say, most religion truly sucks!!! And more to the point, theocratic movements (as the grossest expressions of religion) deeply threaten a sane planetary present and future, and must be soundly, radically defeated as part of a comedy ending to the (self- fulfilling) Armageddon Script.

Q3- Is life all one being?

A- To say 'yes' is to identify oneself as a pantheist, which I'm definitely not. Rather, I'm a panentheist. A good working definition of panentheism is to be found in the Vedic Upanishads: "God transcends the world. God is the world." Life is a Many- In- One Being (and Beyond Being), and the Source is Something/ Someone which even transcends our collective synergy, Californian as this may sound to many. I bow before this Paradoxical Mystery and encourage you to study the writings of great panentheists like Sri Aurobindo and Ken Wilber.

Q4- Do humans have souls which carry over from one life time to the next?

A- Buddhists would argue that the soul or the Self represents the last stand of the ego. Much as I love many Buddhist teachings and especially those of the Mahayana Path of the Boddhisattvas, I couldn't disagree more! As Sri Krishna says to his friend and disciple Arjuna in The Bhagavad Gita (The Song of God): "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings, nor shall any of us cease to be." ...

Yes, I'm convinced that the soul carries over from lifetime to lifetime to lifetime, herniating a process as this may seem! Since I'm an optimist, I'd say that, whatever our beliefs, most of us continue evolving towards the light. For someone who in her previous life was an atheist, a present life time of faith may be just what the cosmic doctor ordered in terms of balance. Yet for someone who had, in his last incarnation, been an over- emotional fundamentalist religious fanatic, hyper- rationalist atheism in this life might serve as a great developmental blessing! In a world of excessive bad aith such as have today, doubt is a gift!

Q5- Do the individuals from the other life kingdoms (animals, minerals, insects and plants) have souls?

A- No one HAS a soul. We either ARE a soul or we're not. Rene Descarte (arrogant philosopher that he was), argued that animals have no souls. Anyhow, there's a joke I once heard: Descarte walks into a bar and after he's finished his first drink, the bartender walks over and asks: "Rene, would you like another?" Descarte says "I think not" and he immediately disappears!

---

Interview with Dr. Sheldon Solomon

Bio: Dr. Sheldon Solomon is the Ross Professor for Interdisciplinary Studies at Skidmore College. He is best known for developing the work of Pulitzer Prize- winning anthropologist Ernest Becker and for founding (along with Dr. Jeff Greenberg and psychologist Tom Pyszcynski) the field of Terror Management Theory. Dr. Solomon is author and co-author of many books and hundreds of articles, and has done countless radio and television interviews and appeared on several documentaries including the 7x's Best Documentary award- winning FLIGHT FROM DEATH narrated by Gabriel Byrne (Vanity Fair, Miller's Crossing, Usual Suspects).

For more information on Terror Management Theory, please contact Dr. Solomon at: ssolomon@skidmore.edu

Q1- Ernest Becker believed that, broadly defined, a religious dimension to the human experience is essential and he argued that making a Kierkegaardian- type leap of faith was necessary for human beings if we are to find real happiness and fulfillment. Now, Dr. Solomon, much as I truly enjoy your engaging teaching style and tremendously value your work as a Terror Management Theorist, I do wonder how reference to homo sapiens as 'mortal meat', 'cold cuts with an attitude', 'talking sausages', etc. honors Becker and helps move his belief about faith forward?

A- My reference to humans as "cold cuts with an attitude" and "talking sausages" and "breathing pieces of defecating meat" is entirely consistent with, and is indeed, directly derived from, and fundamental to, Becker's depiction of the human condition. Specifically, Becker describes humans as "Gods with anuses." On the one hand, we have minds capable of transcending the normal confines of time and space; we can literally imagine something that does not yet exist and then have the audacity to transform our dreams into reality; this is the Godly part. On the other (anal!) hand, our "selves" are embedded in a corporeal container that "has a mouth, digestive tract, and anus….Existence, for all organismic life, is a constant struggle to feed….

Seen in these stark terms, life on this planet is a gory spectacle, a science-fiction nightmare in which digestive tracts fitted with teeth at one end are tearing away at whatever flesh they can reach, and at the other end are piling up the fuming waste excrement as they move along in search of more flesh….each organism raises its head over a field of corpses, smiles into the sun, and declares life good." (Escape from Evil, p. 1-2).

I would argue therefore that my description of humans as "Spam with a plan sans the can" is consistent with Becker's views and does no disservice to either his memory or his belief about faith, which he insists is the only way to satisfactorily resolve the tension between being finite/corporeal creatures who are also sentient, and thus aware of the possibility of possibilities (a Kierkegaardian notion Becker is fond of).

Q2- The great Christian philosopher Gabriel Marcel made the point that "atheism implies infinite research into the universe" and now we even see the self- professed 'atheist' Sam Harris saying he has no idea if there's life after death. On the other hand, Jean Paul Sartre declared man to be a "useless passion" and you, yourself, have called our species "an accident". What makes you so sure?

A2- My allusion to humans as "an accident" is from a purely evolutionary perspective. According to current views, all humans are descended from a relatively tiny band of ancestors in a single neighborhood in southeastern Africa with no more than 2000 inhabitants. There were many other related hominids in existence at the time, but now all of them are extinct and only humans remain, having somehow successfully gone through what biologists refer to as a genetic bottleneck. For all we know, a single unlikely and/or unexpected event resulted in the survival of humans and the extermination of all other hominids. So, in this sense, we are an accidental species.

Or, as the late biologist Steven Jay Gould stressed, if we could somehow go back a few billion years and replay the evolutionary history of life, there is no guarantee that it would end up the way it did. Perhaps the asteroid that hit the earth and exterminated the dinosaurs 60 or so million years ago and led to conditions fostering the evolution of mammals that might otherwise have remained tiny nocturnal pieces of dinosaur food would have precluded the evolution of primates and humans thereafter. So we're an "accidental" species in the sense of not being inevitable, biologically-speaking.

Having said this, I am by no means sure of it, or anything else for that matter. The logic of the scientific method does not logically provide unequivocal certainty in the pursuit of truth - only confident rejection of that which is undoubtedly wrong (e.g., if you claim that a Volkswagen dropped from the top of building will hit the ground faster than a penny, you're wrong; if you claim that the earth is 6000 years old you're wrong). More generally, I'm inclined to follow T.H. Huxley's agnostic view of life: "it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other considerations…do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if any man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face…"

Q3- In terms of honoring Becker's emphasis on the importance of inter-disciplinary pursuit of (empirical) knowledge, what is the nicest thing you can say about religion (hopefully in the absence of dyslexically-delivering it to psychology's door)?

A3- "Religion opens up the depth of man's spiritual life which is usually covered by the dust of our daily life and the noise of our secular work. It gives us the experience of the Holy, of something which is untouchable, awe-inspiring, an ultimate meaning, the source of ultimate courage. This is the glory of what we call religion."
- Paul Tillich - Protestant theologian

Q4- Dr. Solomon, as succinctly as possible, please give us the big picture on what you Terror Management Theorists hope to practically accomplish in the immediate future in terms of discouraging fundamentally- crazed humanity's self- fulfilling prophecy of an Armageddon Script?

A- Terror management theorists hope that empirical demonstrations of the central role of death- denial in the development and maintenance of destructive fundamentalism, be it religious, political, or economic, will help "introduce just that minute measure of reason to help balance destruction." (Ernest Becker, Escape from Evil, P. 170).

Q5- What do you believe is the kindest, most positive thing we can collectively do as human beings to help assure a less dangerous, more benign planetary future?

A- Krishnamurti (I think) said something along the lines that everyone wants to change the world, but no one wants to change themselves. So, first I would argue that we should each take seriously the ancient Greek injunction to "Know Thyself." Then, I'd urge each of us to become good neighbors. Look to your left and your right and ask the people on either side of you if they need anything. If they answer affirmatively, try to help. If we all did this, the world would be infinitely better by the end of the day. After that, I propose we each become informed and active citizens in our communities, states, and nations. Those of us lucky enough to be in democratic countries should exercise their individual right and civic responsibility by voting in all elections, but only after becoming adequately informed about relevant issues of current importance. [Americans: please impeach President George W. Bush immediately!]

Finally, we need to recognize that commonalities between all human beings are much greater than our differences. The sooner we realize that "We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny" (Martin Luther King), the more hopeful I am for a benign or even benevolent planetary future.

TOP

---

Interview with David Spangler

Bio material: David Spangler is an American philosopher, author, clairvoyant and mystic, and is widely considered one of the founding influences of what came to be called 'The New Age Movement'. David served in a joint directorship with Peter Cady at the Findhorn community in Scotland and is a co-founder of The Lorian Association. His many publications include (but are not limited to): "Everyday Miracles", "Towards A Planetary Vision", "The Story Tree", "Revelation: Birth of a New Age", and "Conversations With John".

For more information, please contact http://www.lorian.org

Q- David, I love the term you've aptly coined "incarnational spirituality", especially in light of the fact that, by contrast, so much exoteric religious experience might accurately be called "mindless disincarnational nescience". But can you take us back to basics here and explain how "incarnational spirituality" most intimately relates to what you've referred to as your primary spiritual practice: parenting?

A- Incarnational spirituality is an exploration of the spiritual resources innate in us as incarnate persons as a result of being incarnated. In other words, it sees the process of incarnation--which I believe goes on throughout our lives--and the sovereignty of our personal identity as "engines" generating spiritual energies that are particularly attuned to the material world and to blessing this world. Such a spirituality is intended to complement the more familiar transpersonal approach to spirituality that looks to transcendent or non-physical sources and realms for spiritual energies.

It arises from a holistic sense of who we are as being both transpersonal and personal, non-physical and physical, rather than a hierarchical viewpoint that privileges "higher" levels over this one. The practice of an incarnational spirituality is very much one of seeking coherency and wholeness among all the parts of ourselves.

Parenting gives a particularly rich opportunity to practice this, for as parents we are both the physical initiators and the nurturer/protectors of the incarnations of our children.

Each child represents a unique incarnational expression and possesses a sovereignty and boundaries designed to allow that particular soul to manifest its particular identity, character, needs, destiny, and so on. As a parent, I become a partner to the child's soul in seeing that his or her unique identity is fostered, nourished, and given space to unfold. Now how I do that may depend on each child. In my own case, some of our children required more structure in their upbringing than others, for example. With one child, all we had to say when he was very young was, "Don't cross the street without looking both ways and having an adult with you." He got this immediately and understood the danger that the street represented because of passing cars.

Another child was more physically impulsive and would act without considering what he was doing. He was quite likely to run into the street (and did so on a couple of occasions) without looking or waiting for adult help. So he required a different kind of attention and care to help him master his impulsiveness without losing his spontaneity.

I see incarnation as an act of will. First, it is the will of the soul to become physically embodied, then it is the will of the personality to attend to and unfold its life as best as it can. So as a parent, I was careful not to diminish the will of a child while still helping him or her learn how to blend that will with the wills of others. In short, as a parent, I had to be aware of and careful about the power differential between myself and my children, honoring and encouraging them to stand in their power but in ways that also honored and respected others.

I would say, then, that incarnational spirituality expressed through my parenting as a sense of honoring my children's uniqueness and identities and supporting their abilities to incarnate themselves and their sovereignty, while at the same time giving them tools for integrating with the larger world and the sovereignty and uniqueness of others.

Q2- In apparently experiencing contact with non- physical realms early on, what criteria did you use, if any, in determining the relative or absolute benevolence of the spirit beings presenting themselves to you?

A- This is a good question. Because this contact occurred for me at such an early age (I actually don't remember a time when I was not aware of non-physical beings), I didn't have anything like a sophisticated set of criteria. I went with what felt good to me, both inwardly in my spirit but also in my body. The energy from a spirit being either warmed me and made me feel better and more whole in myself or it didn't. When it didn't, it didn't always mean that the being in question was bad or harmful; sometimes it was just too different for me to feel comfortable with. But sometimes, it was dark and its energy felt painful or disturbing. I suppose there was a kind of "spiritual tropism" at work, like a plant turning towards the sunlight. I could tell by the reactions in my body and just generally in my energy field if a being was, well, "sunny" or not.

As I've gotten older, I've developed more sophisticated modes of discernment, such as those based on a value system I've learned and developed based on being caring and honoring of others, but in the end, they all still come back to, "What does this feel like in my whole being?" I have found my mind can be unsure about the quality of a spirit being, but my body rarely is. It's part of the same deep wisdom that, if we listen to it and don't corrupt or overload it, can tell us what's good for us to eat and what isn't at any given moment. Of course, this isn't 100% accurate (I can almost always be seduced by chocolate!), but it's a place to start from which our minds and hearts can make more reasoned and intuitive discernments.

Q3- It's refreshing to many of us that you speak of the incarnation of the cosmic Christ in all of humanity, not just in one particular individual. Given the twisted propensity of idol- worshiping types to recreate spiritual teachers as mythic fulcrums of terrifying proportions, yours is truly a good news gospel! This having been said, however, the jaundiced religious mainstream has continued accusing you of preaching the doctrine of a false Christ. Is there anything you can say to these folks that they might actually hear and that potentially mitigates their misplaced fear?

A- Actually, I'm not sure how to answer this question, partly because it assumes something that isn't quite true. There have been those, for sure, at the more fundamentalist and reactionary end of the religious spectrum, that would argue my perceptions of the Christ, but there have been many more who find my perception of the Cosmic Christ fully present and supported in traditional Christianity, particularly in its mystical branches. So I can't say I'm continually accused of preaching a false Christ, though that sounds wonderfully dramatic! What I've learned is to honor where a person is. I have great love for Jesus and I can absolutely see the power and blessing that can come to a person who accepts him as a personal savior. I have had a number of fundamentalist friends over the years who, through their relationship to Jesus and to a very particular kind of Christ image, have lived lives of blessing and service. I honor them.

The Sacred--what I think of as the Generative Mystery--is large enough to me to accommodate all kinds of possible relationships as long as they are empowering and nourishing to a soul at a particular stage of development or within a particular world view. The problem, of course, is when any of us try to promote our particular way of relating as being the only way or to force it upon someone else. Since I don't want anyone doing that to me, I try not to do it to them. Consequently, I have learned not to try to talk to folks about topics, like the nature of Christ, around which they have strong and unchanging views. What I would try to do is to show through my actions and behavior towards them or with them that they have nothing to fear from me and that I really do have their best interests at heart, too. But I avoid general theological debates and discussions like the plague, unless everyone involved is genuinely interested in and open to learning and unfolding.

Q4- What in your work with the Lorian Association makes you feel most passionate and brings you the greatest joy (assuming it's the same thing)?

A- Without question, it's working with individuals in my classes and seeing the light (the Light?) go on for them when they get something and as a consequence feel more liberated or more empowered in their individual lives. There is no high like knowing I've touched someone's life in a positive way and as a consequence, they feel better about themselves and, most importantly, are able to better their lives by making concrete changes.

Q5- What do you believe is the kindest, most positive thing we can collectively do as human beings to help assure a less dangerous, more benign planetary future?

A- Frankly, I have no idea! Or more precisely, I don't have a single image of something we can do. Many things come to mind! Pressed to the wall, I would probably say, "Well, we could learn to honor ourselves, each other and the world, for honoring is a first baby step towards loving and caring, and in the end, it's love and care for each other and our world that we need."

Or I could say, "Let's all stop, take a deep breath, and take a time out!" or "Everyone needs to just sit down and think of a funny joke, and then share a funny joke with whoever's nearest them. We need to laugh at ourselves and with each other!"

Actually, the way I would approach this question would be to ask, "What is the kindest, more positive thing I personally can do in my own unique way with whomever or whatever I am engaging with in this specific moment that would make the next few minutes less dangerous, more benign, and open to blessing?" What can I say? I'm a minimalist! Ha!

(I'm reminded of an advertising slogan for a car-care company I heard on the radio years ago that said, "We don't want to change the world, we just want to change your oil." I guess I feel like that a lot of the time!)

Thank you! These were excellent questions, better than a lot I get from interviewers!
David

TOP

---

Interview with Shaggy Wright

NO BIO MATERIAL AVAILABLE
CONTACT INFO:shaggywright23@hotmail.com

Q1- Shaggy, the great pantheist (not atheist) Thomas Paine says in 'The Age of Reason' that he found not a single scrap of evidence in the Old Testament Bible for the claim of Jesus' being the Jewish messiah. Inasmuch as I'd love to congratulate Jesus for avoiding this dubious distinction, I cannot, quite frankly, find (outside the Bible) any substantial evidence even for Jesus' existence! In the absence of vision- impaired faith, he appears to be either a myth or a mythologized man. Can you comment on this, please?

A- Based on the evidence I've seen, he appears to be a conglomerate of myths. Like you, I have found no good evidence that the Jesus of the gospels was a real person. I have found some evidence that a number of stories (from 100BC to 100AD) contain details similar to a few things in the gospels, but no evidence that such stories were of people that were any more real than the Jesus of the gospels.

As far as I can tell, based on my research, Christianity started with a very basic- and very Gnostic- position. Over time, it borrowed details from various myths to build up the story. Eventually, the story developed to the point that Jesus was believed to have been a real person.

Q2- While there are many frightening movies available in the theatre today, fiction seems less scary than reality, especially in light of chilling statistics showing that 53% of Americans believe in Creationism, as presented in the schizophrenic (two competing tales) book of Genesis. All this aside for the moment, do you consider it possible that some form of Intelligent Design is vaguely inherent in the unfolding of Evolution?

A- Possible? Yes...anything is possible. It isn't very likely, and- despite the claims of the ID movement- it most certainly isn't necessary that life on earth- as we know it- is the result of an "intelligent designer"...One of the biggest problems with the ID movement is that it tries to distance itself from religion, yet- at its base- it is clearly religious. The reason the ID movement tries to distance itself from religion is because it is trying to get around the legal issues that previous anti- evolution groups encountered in teaching a "god did it" hypothesis in public school...We can see that the ID movement is religious with a single question: "Who/ what is the "intelligent designer"?

If they claim it was a deity, then Intelligent Design can immediately be seen as the religious tool that it is. If they claim that it was another living being from elsewhere in the universe (in order to avoid the religious implication), we can ask: If our complexity requires a designer, so does theirs...so, who/ what was the "intelligent designer" of these other creatures?

This can continue indefinitely. To skip past all the nonsense of asking the question "who/what was THEIR intelligent designer" over and over again, we can ask,"If we go far enough back , we must reach the first 'intelligent designer': who/what is it? If they posit a 'god did it' hypothesis, then Intelligent Design' can finally be shown as religious. However, if they claim that natural law could have produced the first beings (again, to distance themselves from religion), they defeat the purpose of their own arguments.

After all, if the first beings- which would necessarily have been complex- did not need a designer, then - despite the ID movement's claim to the contrary- life on earth, as we know it, does not necessitate an 'intelligent designer' simply because it is complex.

Q3- Whether as an actual person or as a myth, Jesus says that he came to fulfill (rather than abolish) the Tanach (Old Testament), and since the Old Testament, upon examination, contains devilish, satanic passages like Leviticus 21:9, isn't belief in 'Jesus' largely responsible for the life- threatening rise of the Christian Right in America today?

A- Not necessarily. I mean, most Christians have the idea that Jesus was a "love everyone" kind of person and that he wanted everyone else to be that way. Like those in the Christian Right, these people believe in Jesus. They do not, however, act like they are one of their god's personal mercenaries. Also, there are few Christians that, for example, believe the death penalty should still be used on those who break any of the OT laws that call for such a punishment. Only the most extreme form of fundamentalism would hold such a view.

The problem is not in the mere "belief"; it is in the extreme fundamentalist view of the source (ie the Bible) of said belief...Interestingly enough, the small amount of people with said view seem to be able to shout their view the loudest in the media. For some, it makes the group look bigger than it really is.

Q4- The great French Existentialist Gabriel Marcel claimed that "atheism' implies infinite research into the Universe". As a Free Thinker, do you agree or disagree, and why or why?

A- I disagree. It is nothing more than a smokescreen. Atheism does not imply "infinite research into the Universe" anymore than Marcel's disbelief in other gods and/or in mythical creatures (e.g. dragons, unicorns, satyrs, cockatrices, etc) implies "infinite research into the Universe." To this day, people continue to use this flawed argument. When used in debates, it usually takes this flawed form (or something like it): first of all, it is pointed out that there are lots of things that are known and lots of things that are unknown. Next, it is claimed that what is unknown is vastly greater than what is known.

Here's where it gets tricky: based on this, the person presenting the argument (usually a Christian) claims that a perfect proof of his god "could be" somewhere in the enormous amount of "unknown" stuff"....The problem is that a perfect proof against the possibility of any gods is just as likely to be somewhere amongst the "unknown" stuff. Pointing to the unknown for evidence is useless; claiming the evidence is amongst the unknown is intellectually dishonest.

Q5- Shaggy, what do you believe is the kindest, most positive thing we can collectively do as human beings to help assure a less dangerous, more benign planetary future?

A- Simple: never initiate force. If everyone followed this simple concept, the world would be a perfect place. Unfortunately, both religion and politics prevent such a world from ever existing, since both insist that their existence is necessary, and are willing to initiate force against those who disagree.

TOP

---

Interview with Joe Busuttil

BIO: Joe Busuttil is an active member of the Solid Rock Church in Sedona, AZ. His search for Self, God, and the meaning of life began at age 13. He passed through many spiritual experiences, including one as a Vedic monk, but claims he met Jesus and that Jesus is the real thing. Joe can be reached by email at: Joe_Busuttil@yahoo.com or
through the Church website: www.solidrockchurchofsedona.com         

Joe, thanks for doing this interview. It's funny that both of us have Hindu fundamentalism, Hare Krsna Movement involvement, in our past, although it looks like we've gone in radically different directions since that strange, shared experience. Maybe we can learn something from each other here.

Q1- You're clearly having a good time, so, in some respect, you'd perhaps identify, as I do, with the poet Rilke's intuition of "God as a Positive Direction". But can you tell us a little about the Church's mission in Sedona and here on earth, and your particular role in helping to fulfill it?

A- I would do a little mash up of that to simply say "God as Positive" because that is how I experience God in my life. A Person of total positives. Positive peace, joy, grace, love and so much more. The church is not a building. The born again, spirit filled believer is the church and our mission, if you wish to call it such, is to live the Light of Christ - the Anointed. To bring peace as He did, to heal as He did, to enlighten as He did, to leave no one hungry, naked or wanting. Jesus said the "you will do the works I do and even greater works will you do." Our church 'building' is simply training and equipping center to show people who He is and what He has done and will continue to do in us. My role is to help share the celebration with others. I do whatever He calls me to do.

Q2- You said in a recent email to me: "I think our big brother Jesus Christ is getting a bum rap from churches and fun-less-mentalists." Comedian Swami Beyondananda (another interviewee) suggests that "Fundamentalists have put the mental before the fun." So, if the (pesticide dogma- free) fruit of the spirit is joy, what's the tree it grows on?

A- It grows on the tree of relationship. We need to understand the Eastern way of thought which has always been based on relationship. It is not a mental exercise. It is not intellectual gymnastics. Truth is a person. He has a name - Yashua or Jesus if that suits one better. He is the very being of Joy.

Q3- A careful or even semi- careful reading of Mark and John stories regarding Jesus' Passover week tribulations reveal several glaring contradictions, the most notable being, in the Mark gospel, Jesus survives the Day of Prep whereas in the John gospel he definitely doesn't. How do you explain this?

A- There are actually two issues here, so let me be brief. First, there is no contradiction. The answer is found in a reading of John 4:52. A man comes to Jesus whose son is dying. Jesus says to the man unless you see miracles you will not believe but never the less your son is healed. When the man returns home his family tells him his son was healed on the 'seventh hour' when, in fact Jesus declared him healed. Here is the key - there is no seventh hour in the New Testament Jewish way of keeping time but there certainly is in the Roman way. There were two ways of keeping track of time - Jewish and Roman. While neither was atomic clock material it served the times. Mark was using Jewish time and John Roman. There are other places where it is evident that certain disciples tended to gravitate to one culture or another as circumstances dictated.

Now I just want to touch on the second issue in this question briefly and that is the seeking of seeming contradictions and other issues that on the surface challenge us. The bible is a very difficult book to understand if read as a simple book. It is not a book as we are used to encountering. In the material sense it is a collection of books that are historical, poetry, laws, prophecy, administration, government and much more. Sixty six books in different languages covering a vast amount of time. Whew! In the spiritual sense it is the revelation of God to the human race. Again I must belabor the point that unless we begin at the beginning - relationship - the rest is a waste of time. That coming from some one who spent 35 years in scriptural study of every belief I could lay my hands on. In the words of the Apostle Paul who quotes Isaiah 'all our righteous acts are as filthy rags.' To modernize that as Morpheus said to Neo "Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself."

Q4- In his most famous book "Autobiography of a Yogi", Paramahansa Yogananda gives his apparently sincere personal testimony regarding the alleged physical resurrection of his spiritual teacher. But, unlike Paul the Apostle's interpretation of Jesus' alleged resurrection, there's no sense of urgency conveyed to the reader regarding the necessity to believe the story. Can you comment?

A- Shri Yukteswar never claimed to be the Messiah. His death was just that - human death. His death was not for the sins/rebellion of the race. If the Holy Spirit did not raise Jesus then all of Christianity is false. It is just another social philosophy. I would then have to entertain that all the miracles I and others have seen are tricks, no ones life was changed, drug addicts never came clean, alcoholics never sobered up, families and marriages were never made whole, the sick were never healed, the poor never prospered and there is absolutely no light at the end of the tunnel! That, my friend, requires more faith than believing what I believe and knowing what I know. The urgency is we have a limited number of time here on earth. I have good news! You and all your readers are going to live forever. I have bad news! You and all your readers are going to live forever. Forever in relationship with God or forever estranged and no one can make that decision but us because God will always honor our free will.

Q5- Whether Jesus was a man, a mythologized man, a myth, or a man-God, I'd feel safer around the alleged "Greatest Story Ever Told" if this candidate- messiah's mission had been, not to fulfill the Jewish Law (see "35 Bad Bible Verses"), but rather to destroy it. What do you do with verses like Leviticus 21:9? ("And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father. She must be burnt with fire.") It, and many others like it in the Bible, seems off-the-charts satanic to me.

A- Ah, you saved the best for last, Paul. In any intelligent discourse Leviticus always comes up. The most difficult book in the bible. The book that gets fundamental preachers heels dug in and liberal Christians looking embarrassed. What will it be? The roaring seemingly wrath filled Jehovah or the cuddly God that some think lives in the New Testament? The answer again is relationship and knowing God as God. God simply states "My thoughts are not your thoughts and my ways are not your ways." His plan is spun out across a timeless vista. The times Leviticus was written the human race was out doing it self in perversity and destruction. Read Leviticus and you will see children being sacrificed to an idol called Moloch. The temple priesthood was totally corrupt and prostitution was common in the temple as was worship of false gods. The very set aside priestly order God had set aside to teach His words and aid people had become 'a den of thieves' and worse. No one sets in motion a law for a crime that does not exist. Laws for incest, rape, bestiality, adultery, idol worship, child sacrifice were there because it was the practice of the people.

God did not set the crimes - the people did. God did set the punishment which in many cases was death. Harsh? Yes. Unjustified? I don't think so. There were a 'stiff necked people.' Today we have a death penalty but do people still kill one another for insane reasons? Is that Gods fault? We are a fallen race in need of repentance. That word - repentance- translates to 'turn around and walk the other way.' Just turn from the darkness and walk to Him who came to be the penalty of the law for you. You see if Leviticus shows us anything it's all the laws and rules in the world can't help us. Jesus gave the two simple commandments 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.

And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Guess what? We couldn't do those two either so Jesus did it Himself. Became the last sacrifice ever needed. Wiped clean the slate and it's a free gift to those who want to believe and come to Him. It's so simple that for hundreds of years religion has tried to make it more complicated and demanding than it really is. Just come and ask Jesus what the heck is this about? Who are you? Who is God? What is my purpose in this drama? Show me - enlighten me- and I'll make you my teacher - my savior. I have no idea and I'm tied of my rebellion. Teach me! Believe that and then to quote The Matrix you take the red pill and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Thanks for the opportunity to share Paul. I trust I kept it concise it will bear some interest to some people.

TOP

---

Interview with Tim Freke

BIO: Tim Freke is a tireless lecturer and author with an honors degree in philosophy, and he is the creator of the widely- acclaimed experiential Lucid Living' seminar series. To date, Tim has written over twenty (internationally published) books on mysticism and Gnosticism including "The Jesus Mysteries" (a top 10 best seller in the U.S. and the U.K.), and "Jesus & The Lost Goddess" a book cited by Dan Brown as an inspiration for "The Da Vinci Code". Tim has been featured by media throughout the world including an interview for The History Channel in a documentary titled "Beyond The Da Vinci Code".

Tim may be contacted through the following websites: www.timothyfreke.com and www.allianceforlucidliving.com

Q1- Tim, would you say there any thought more cruel in creation than the belief that someone who doesn't endorse one's scriptural presuppositions is doomed to eternal torture in hell? (See final warning in the last book of the Bible, Revelation, and also Surah 64:10 of the Koran)

A - Some people complain that the things Peter Gandy and I write about religion are offensive. So far we haven't had any death threats, but we do get lots of 'after-death' threats. Apparently a small corner of Hell has been reserved for us, where we'll be tortured for ever…. by a God of love! Now that is a truly offensive idea! It is hard to think of a more vicious threat. But it is an essential part of the bully boy tactics used by Literalist religion to cajole us like worried sheep into the pen of blind faith. Gnosticism, on the other hand, is about love not fear.

Q2- Would you say, from Gnostic perspective, that Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" at least represents movement in the right direction or does it compound the problem of unknowing?

A - I have not read Kierkegaard for nearly thirty years, and I'm not sure I really understood him when I did! But I can share my passion for not-knowing. Recently I had the rather surprising realization that I have become as wise as Socrates. He was regarded by the oracle of Delphi as the wisest man alive, because he knew that he knew nothing. I also would claim this paradoxical knowledge. I also know I know nothing. It's been a hard old journey of unlearning, but I've got there. And what a liberation it is!

Sometimes of course I play at knowing things, but secretly I know it's all bluff. All concepts are inadequate before the endless grandeur and infinite mystery of the universe. It's fun to tell stories. As a philosopher I love them. But if you want to know reality you need to experience the pre-conceptual presence of being, which is the ever-present mystery itself. Sometimes I see my work as little more than sidling up to people and softly whispering in their ear - 'Heh! Have you noticed how mysterious it all is. Let's stop pretending we know what's going on, because it's stopping us from experiencing the truth."

Q3- The great anthropologist Ernest Becker believed that, the real core of human motivation is 'the denial of death'- a denial which, when confronted, can cause extreme aggression on the part of s/he who is in denial. What do you see as the connection, if any, between the denial of death and belief in Jesus' overcoming death?

A - Religion is a post-mortem insurance policy, sold to people as part of the ultimate confidence trick. In the literalist interpretation of the Jesus myth the message is that Jesus came back from the dead and if you believe so will you. This is why we sometimes get an angry reaction when we question the existence of the historical Jesus, because people can feel we are threatening their own immortality.

For Gnostics the symbol of resurrection is about here and now, not the past or future. Now is when we need to come to life, by waking up from the illusion of separateness and discovering the Christ within - the one awareness in all. Being conscious of death in the present moment is an essential part of the process of waking up.

I feel Becker is only partly right that we are motivated by the denial of death. Our core motivation depends on who we think we are. For those who identify exclusively with the mortal body, fear and denial of death may be the key motivator. But when we become conscious of our deeper being which is one with all, love becomes the key motivator.

Q4- Dr. Bart Ehrman makes the point that there is not enough information about "the historical Jesus" to put on a 3 x 5 card. (ex: Galatians 4:4). From your perspective, does it really much matter whether Jesus is actually a myth or a mythologized man born of a gigantic game of Telephone?

A - It does not really matter to me either way. In our books, Peter and I just explore what we feel is the most elegant explanation of the evidence as we see it. My real passion is waking up in the moment, not arguments about history. But I feel it is important to be able to question the historicity of Jesus, because if you can't contemplate the possibility that Jesus didn't really exist, you'll never be able to get your head around the idea that you don't really exist as a person - and that's the secret of gnosis.

Q5- What do you believe is the kindest, most positive thing we can collectively do as human beings to help assure a less dangerous, more benign planetary future?

A - The most important thing we can do is to prioritize love in our lives. When we truly love, we are naturally kind. But this love needs to be the deepest love that arises from the recognition of our essential shared nature. When we know we are one with all we find ourselves in love with. If enough of us could wake up to oneness and live from love we would transform life from a nightmare of separateness into the celebration of existence we all really want it to be.

TOP

---

DR. SUSAN SHUMSKY INTERVIEW

Dr. Susan Shumsky is a well known yoga and meditation instructor, and a best selling author whose books have been translated into six languages.
Some of the titles include:
* 'Divine Revelation'
* 'Exploring Meditation'
* 'Miracle Prayer'

Susan, who is currently working on a new book 'Ascension', has made over 500 media appearances and has had over 450 speaking engagements. For more information, please contact Susan at: www.divinerevelation.org.

Q1- Susan, thanks for making time for this interview. My first question is, in what ways (if any) does heavenly humor manifest… ah, "womanifest".. in your life these days and nights?

A- Heavenly humor is ever-present in the divine joy that accompanies inner contact with divine beings, deities, and aspects of our higher self, such as the blissful presence of the great immortal Mahavatar or Mahamuni Babaji, who teaches us, using wily ways that show us truth about ourselves in continual divine laughter, joy, and mirth. Other divine beings are also filled with humor and laughter. We just need to be open to their teachings and their presence.

Q2- I never visited Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's ashram, but I did stand on the other side of the Ganga on a bluff overlooking it, and at night it was so magical to behold- like some celestial beehive all aglow! Anyhow, what would you say was the greatest gift you received, and the greatest gift you gave, being part of Maharishi's personal staff?

A- I received many gifts from Maharishi. I learned how to meditate and how to teach meditation to anyone. I learned Vedic wisdom and the Vedic literature. I learned profound wisdom about the supreme knowledge and ultimate reality. I learned yoga (union with the impersonal God) and experienced it daily. I learned the siddhis (supernormal powers). I learned Indian philosophy, ritual, and practices.

I received great unconditional love from someone who gives love unconditionally. I received healing of lifetimes of sanskaras (old belief patterns). I was saved from lifetimes of suffering as a result of the meditation practices and grace that I received in Maharishi's presence. I was personally guided by Maharishi to do seemingly impossible tasks over and over. This showed me that I can accomplish anything that I put my mind to. I was shown that when I focus with full faith, anything that I desire comes to pass.

I was taught about self-sufficiency, self-authority, and self-confidence. I was taught what it means to live in an ashram, under the control of a guru, and what it means to leave the cocoon of the ashram and live according to one's own true life path, true desires, and true purpose.

Q3- In the pan-entheist (not pantheistic) metaphysics of, for example, Plotinus, Sri Aurobindo, and Ken Wilber, and in the teachings of at least one of the ancient Upanishads preceding these, the main idea is that we are included in Divinity, but paradoxically transcended by the same. Do you see yourself as a junior partner in your eternal relationship (ah…partnership) with Divinity or is this a sole proprietorship in which there's only one entity, You the Divine, You the Inner Guru who is God?

A- There are two aspects of God, both of which are within you. One is formless and the other is in form.

The impersonal aspect of God is the formless, eternal, imperishable, beginningless, endless, transcendental, nameless, unmanifest, absolute, often called "Brahman," the "Tao," or "Yi." That impersonal aspect of God gives perfect peace, complete contentment, spiritual enlightenment, total fulfillment, complete rest, deep relaxation, wholeness, and oneness. It is one, only one, without a second. It is silent and it does not speak. It is who you really are on the deepest level.

The personal aspect of God is the aspect or aspects of God that are in form, with names. They are manifest. These aspects of God bestow grace, love, inspiration, healing, wisdom, comfort, solace, protection, safety, and they speak with you and communicate with you. You can have a conversation with them. They are within you and are aspects of your own higher self.

Through my method called "Divine Revelation," I help people experience both the impersonal and personal aspects of God.

Q4- Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have pegged "satchitananda" as part of the mapping of impersonal Divinity, saying that after years of meditating on it (in it), you realized that you missed the "personal God". While I've seen this word translated from the Sanskrit as "eternity, knowledge, and bliss" and alternately as "existence, consciousness, joy", it's definitely a main focus of all Vedic sages of both personalist and impersonalist persuasion. What am I missing here, doc?

A- Satchitananda, which means "sat" absolute, "ananda" bliss, "chit" consciousness, is the end-all be-all experience of yoga-the impersonal God. But there is also a personal God, which can also be experienced. The experience of the impersonal God is total peace, deep relaxation, and unbounded awareness. It is total expansion, bliss, oneness, and wholeness. But what is missing in the impersonal God is love. In order to experience divine love, it is necessary to experience the personal God, which brings comfort and solace. When you contact and communicate with the personal God, you are never alone again. At any moment, at will, you can call upon the personal God, who will personally answer any question, heal any difficulty, and give assurance in any concern or situation. The personal God cares for you personally. It is like a loving father or mother. The impersonal God is dispassionate and transcendental, beyond the manifest world. You can experience it, but it will not provide love. It will provide bliss, which is different from love.

Q5- Susan, I've lived in California before (at the foot of Mount Shasta), so when I hear a particular phrase used to describe you ( ie. "foremost spirituality expert"), I get some some sense of what you're trying to communicate, even as I scratch my head a little. But for those who haven't lived at the foot of Mt. Shasta or even tried mind- expanding drugs, what exactly do you mean?

A- A foremost spirituality expert is someone who knows the pathway and can track the full roadmap to the inner life. It is someone who has had experiences on many levels of the inner and outer life, and therefore can guide others along the path to spiritual discernment into the heart of God's love. It is someone who can teach meditation and facilitate the breakthrough experience for anyone with a sincere desire to experience the divine presence directly. The "breakthrough experience" means breaking through the barrier that has stood between the individual and God. That façade barrier is the false belief that we are separate from God.

A foremost spirituality expert is someone who can help others bypass the lower astral levels of mind and other levels of mind, and instead walk directly into the loving presence of God, to have direct mystical experience of the waves of God's love, the streams of God's light, and the comfort, love, and joy of God's presence. And to also help anyone experience the transcendental reality of absolute bliss consciousness.

TOP

---

John B. Cobb, Jr. Interview

John B. Cobb Jr., PhD is a retired American United Methodist theologian who is co-founder of the "Mobilization for the Human Family" and co-director of the "Center for Process Studies". He is also an Emeritus Professor at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate School, and has authored or co-authored more than thirty books. A few of the titles include "Sustainability", "Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition", and "Can Christ Become Good News Again?" Dr. Cobb is most famous for integrating the metaphysics of Alfred Norse Whitehead into the teachings of Christianity, evolving a Christocentric pluralism grounded in his belief in Sophia (divine wisdom).

You can contact Mr. Cobb by email at: cobbj@cgu.edu

Q1- Thanks for doing this interview with us, Dr. Cobb. Would it be safe to say that you, as a process theologian, are basically a panentheist (not pantheist), and, if so, how do you differ in perception from Ken Wilber or Sri Aurobindo, or, for that matter, Plotinus?

A- Yes, I am a panentheist. I learned this term from Charles Hartshorne when I was a student in the late forties. At that time few claimed it, but Hartshorne applied it to himself. Today many people apply the term to themselves. I am very pleased this changed. In the earlier period, the main choices were theism, deism, Being Itself, and pantheism. The two former located God above the created order and outside of the creation. Theists held that from this transcendent position God acted in the world and through that action was also present in the world. Deists connected God to the world as its originating cause and source of unchanging order only. Tillich was the chief teacher of God as ground of being or Being Itself, deriving this idea from Thomas Aquinas. This located God within everything as the reason that it is at all. But God is not thought of as having any separate reality or as being an entity at all. In Tillich's language God does not exist. God has no characteristics. Tillich recognized that this is not the God of the Bible. Pantheism identified God with the totality of what is. It might emphasize the totality in such a way as to make God all in all; or it could simply use "God" as another name for whatever you have when you put all the things that make up the world together. With those choices, panentheism was a breath of fresh air. It enables one to seriously locate God everywhere and yet distinguish God as an actual entity from all the actual entities that make up the world. The world is in God; but God is much more than the addition of the creatures.

It was this idea that caught on widely and caused many people to pick up the term. Tillich himself did so, and the third volume of the Systematic Theology actually does depict God in a more panentheistic way. But of course when a lot of people pick up on a term, there are many differences of detail among those who use the term. Much of this hinges on the meaning of "in". For some it is primarily spatial. For process thinkers it derives from the way one experience is included in a successor experience. Whereas my experience in one moment is largely included in my experience in the next moment, it is not wholly included. But Hartshorne taught that in the divine case, the inclusion was perfect and endured forever. Some other forms of panentheism agree, but by no means all.

The other feature of process thought, especially central to Whitehead, was that it is equally true that God is in every creature. Here again, "in" is determined by an analysis of experience rather than spatial thinking. Many process thinkers consider this part of the meaning of "panentheism," although, of course, it does not necessarily follow and not all panentheists affirm it.

Q2- What, in your view, is the most promising aspect of di-polar reality, as you understand it, and also the most challenging (as in potentially frightening)?

A- Here, too, process thought provides an alternative to the usual choices. In much of modern philosophy one had to choose between materialism, idealism, and dualism. I consider that di-polarity does justice to the element of truth in both materialism and idealism without falling into dualism. It says that both are wrong to exclude the other. Of course, in the process of explaining di-polarity, the ideas of both matter and mind get changed quite drastically. Di-polarity affirms that in every event there are both physical and mental aspects. These are integrated into the concrete actuality of experience, which is therefore always both physical and mental. But it says that both are wrong to exclude the other. Of course, in the process of explaining di-polarity, the ideas of both matter and mind get changed quite drastically.

Probably what offends what has come to be common sense in the West is the idea that even very simple entities like quanta have something "mental" about them. This idea is ridiculed by saying that process thinkers suppose that rocks have feelings and thoughts. Of course that is false, but it shows the fear of attributing any kind of subjectivity or experience to what we have become accustomed to calling the "material" world. If Whitehead is right, there is no such thing as "matter." The world is made up of tiny bursts of emotion that become what they become through the influence of other bursts of emotion. Viewed externally, as physics does, this emotion is called energy. Until complex organisms with central nervous systems arise, there is no consciousness. I see no danger in entertaining this speculation and holding on to this hypothesis until a more fruitful one comes along.

Q3- If you were having dinner with a Californian version of a modern Plato, or his counterfeit, what would be your response to the following admonition from him: "John, you're too focused on pluralism. Try and imagine you are traveling through a multiversal reality tunnel on a train named Immanence-In-Motion, but are on your way home to the Grand Central Station named Blessed Universal Transcendent."

A- I would engage him in discussion of the relation of the potential and the actual. In Greek thought about form and matter, matter was understood as passive; so activity was on the side of the forms. These forms are transcendent and changeless. Whitehead agrees that the forms are transcendent and changeless, but he does not see that they are active. When we understand what the Greeks called matter as in fact energy, we can also see that it is active. If we shift the locus of act or action from form to energy, there is less of a tendency to see the realm of forms as somehow superior to the world of events. If Plato had kept up with developments in physics, I think he might agree with me. If we focus on the world of events it is difficult to avoid pluralism.

Q4- Dr. Cobb, the wondrous G. K. Chesterton once said, "All religions are the same, especially Buddhism." This cracks me up! In honor of Chesterton, my next question is, does it really matter whether we are talking about reverenced (godless) buddhic being or a reverenced Christian, Muslim, or Jewish Supreme Being? Even if you don't believe in "religion" singular, isn't it all about "religious" experience, really, what ever the marketing angle? I mean, we all of us, in our personal hierarchy of importance, seem to have our own unique psychological firewall and final bridge to fortify in the denial of death, right?

A- My view is that the religious experience of Buddhists and of biblically-based Christians is quite different. A Whiteheadian cosmology can describe the situation in a way that shows that both are authentic. Each actual occasion is an instance of the many becoming one. This is very similar to the Buddhist insight of no substance and no self. The Buddhists speak of pratitya samutpada, which can be translated "dependent origination." From a Whiteheadian perspective their metaphysics is more profound than that of the West. It leads to the goal of existentially realizing what we are, and Buddhist meditation is geared to that

In the process of the many becoming one, Whitehead posits that the ordering of potentiality by God determines the "initial subjective aim" of each occasion. The integration of the many is aimed at realizing value. In the process, other influences come to bear, and in the human case, an occasion may decide to actualize something less that the full value encouraged by God. Much of Christian spirituality is geared to opening ourselves to God's purposes for our lives and seeking to let them shape us.

In my view it does not help to emphasize only similarities. I prefer to emphasize differences and then consider how the two forms of spirituality are complementary. Many Christians now practice Buddhist meditation. From a process perspective this should be encouraged. It should not be at the cost of reduced interest in conforming ourselves to God's purposes for us.

Q5- Correct me if I'm wrong, but, aside from Trinitarian dogma, I believe the Arian Heresy, so called, presented Jesus Christ as akin to a bar of earth iron that had finally been so thoroughly heated by the Fire of Heaven, it became, for all intents and purposes, non different from it. In any case, how close or far away from Islam's "sin" of shirk (partnering anyone with God) would you say you are you in your Logos Christology belief that Jesus' very structure of existence was/is/(presumably will forever be?) different from yours, mine, ours?

A- My understanding of Arius is different. I believe he held that the Logos had been created from the beginning. It was thus a creature but radically unlike human beings. It was this divine, everlasting creature who took on whom form. Although there is considerable support for this way of thinking in the Bible, I think we are fortunate that it was finally rejected by the church. It introduces a tertium quid that does more harm than good.

The church taught that it is God who is incarnate in a human being. This can be very confusing if it means that this human being, Jesus, is God. My view is that Jesus as the incarnation of God came into being only in Mary's womb. That is, Jesus was not pre-existent, as in Arius. The pre-existent Jesus, if one must speak of that, was God. In my Christology I identified this with the Primordial Nature of God, which plays a role in Whitehead much like the Logos in Greek philosophy. I have since come to the view that it is God as God who is incarnate in Jesus, and that it would be better to speak of Sophia rather than Logos. There are more references in the New Testament to the Sophia of God than to the Logos of God. And wisdom is a richer idea than reason or word.

In a general sense, for a Whiteheadian, God is incarnate in every creature. In my book I argue that in Jesus, at times in his life, his "I" was co-constituted by his prehension of God (that is, God's presence in him) and his prehension of his personal past. I have said that we do not have historical evidence of just this structure of existence in others. It is not impossible that there have been others or will be others. I do not think that we are called to be like Jesus in just this respect.

TOP

---

Kevin Barrett Interview

Dr. Kevin Barrett is a controversial Arabist-Islamologist scholar and an outspoken critic of the New World Order's "War on Terror". Dr. Barrett who has appeared on CNN, FOX, and PBS, is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and a founding member of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance (MUJCA). He is also a lecturer, radio talk show host ("truth Jihad Radio" and "Fair and Balanced"), and an author. His books include: "Questioning The War On Terror" and "Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against The 9/11 Big Lie". And he co-authored with Dr. John Cobb and Dr. Sandra Lubarsky: "9/11 and American Empire Building: Christians, Jews, and Muslims Speak Out". Dr. Barrett can be reached through his website: www.truthjihad.com.

Dr. Barrett, thank you for doing this second interview. First, I'd like to clear something up. In the first interview (reader: see "Politics" section) I was teasing Californian Sufis a bit (I feel safe doing so and I love Sufis in general), but more to the point, I was only saying that jihad, as apparently in understood by mainstream Muslims themselves, cannot be defined exclusively in terms of inner struggle. And your own ministry of course bears witness to this very point. My expressed concern remains the same- that Qur'an-reading militant Muslims, like Bible-reading militant Christians, and Zionism- friendly militant Jews, often deign to compete in the open marketplace of ideas only with secret post-ecumenical intent to destroy the same. The goal of control- oriented patriarchal movements, both religion and secular, wouldn't appear to be civil liberty and/or freedom of religion, irreligion, areligion.

Q1- I once heard Islam given as an example of "radical theism", although nothing comes up under that when you Google it. If memory serves correctly, the idea conveyed by this writer (can't remember his name) is that, in Islamic doctrine, humans are said to have nothing in common with God. Is this guy why off base, and, if not, why are attributes like "mercy" attributed to "Him"? These appear to come out of human experience or else represent something we are permitted to participle in by Nature and/or God, yes?

A- If frogs invented a god, it would hop off its pedestal and utter holy "ribbits" and catch angelic flies with its sacred tongue. And human gods naturally tend to be all-too-human. When you make the narcissistic mistake of worshipping an exalted embodiment of your own species (or, worse, your tribe) you're kowtowing to Blake's Nobodaddy.

Neoplatonist Christian mystics report that God is actually something they call the "Godhead." This concept is not unlike descriptions of ultimate reality in Buddhism, some varieties of Hindu mysticism, and of course Islam. This is the Reality. Anthropomorphic gods, like the one on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, are figments of the all-too-human imagination.

Everything we experience, including such qualities as mercy and compassion, not only comes from God, but depends for its reality on God. Metaphorically, God is a point of infinitely bright light. As this light goes out from the divine singularity into multiplicity, it mixes with shadow. What we experience as mercy at the human level is an admixture of Real mercy (the divine mercy, ar-rahman) and illusion/shadow/nothingness.

The purpose of life is to move out of the shadow into the light; to get closer to God. We must slough off the illusory part of ourselves, the part that is not-God.

So in short, qualities like mercy come from God, and we are permitted to participate in them to the extent we move closer to God.

Q2- With respect, Dr. Barrett, the Qur'an is really as problematic as the Bible in condoning and "presenting as normal" the devaluation and exploitation of women and girls, and the verses implicit in this sexism cannot be truthfully denied. Surah 4:24, for example, directly permits the sexual enslavement of girls. This deeply disturbs me, and I must say: frankly, I'm very grateful to Islamic reformer Irshad Manji for her courage in bringing forth the book "The Trouble with Islam Today". Can you comment on Manji's work, please, especially upon her call, not for expressions of jihad, but for ijihad (Islamic power of independent reasoning)?

A- With respect, Paul, it seems to me that Manji is working out of and for a satanically-inspired egotistical, materialistic worldview aimed at enslaving the human soul and dragging it away from the light and toward the darkness. Western culture's narcissistic obsession with individualism and achievement in the life of this world is destroying the planet, and people like Manji are the shock troops of the assault on traditional religious spirituality, which is the only possible basis of a sustainable social order.

As for slavery, it is an inevitable aspect of the human condition. At the deepest level we are all abject slaves of God, utterly subject to His whims. All societies except the most primitive include various forms of slavery. Western consumer culture is based on the enslavement of much of the rest of the world in sweatshops. Increasingly we are all becoming the slaves of the trillionaire criminals who are creating a New World Order -- the first society in history not based on religious spirituality as well as the first empire to dominate the entire planet. When completed it will be one big global slave plantation. This is the enemy against which all good people today are waging jihad, just as the Pharoah's empire was the enemy of Moses, the Roman Empire was the enemy of Jesus, and the Quraishi regime the enemy of Muhammad, peace upon him.

By contrast to today's varieties of slavery, the kind of slavery found in traditional Islamic societies, including the first one in Medina, was relatively benign. The owner was required to provide the slave the same living conditions enjoyed by other family members. (Yes, the slave was essentially a family member.) Slaves could amass their own wealth, achieve freedom, become businesspeople or religious scholars, and sometimes even become the rulers of the land -- the Mamluk dynasty, for instance, was ruled by slaves. If you actually read Surahs 4:24 and 4:25, you'll see that the Qur'an prescribes a kind of social equality between slaves and non-slaves, saying it is okay to marry slaves because "you are (sprung) one from another." Intermarriage between slaves and non-slaves has been common throughout Islamic history. Compare this situation to that of the illegal Mexican maid who services the billionaire today for a few dollars an hour. The billionaire can exploit her sexually virtually for nothing, while avoiding any requirement to fully provide for her food and housing at all -- much less at the same level the billionaire and his family enjoy. And MARRY HER?! Are you kidding? So the power gap, and the degree of exploitation, between functional slaves and masters today is vastly greater than it was in Madina and in most traditional Islamic cultures. We need to start following the Qur'an by insisting on full human equality of all people, regardless of socio-economic status.

As for ijihad, which just means "using effort to interpret the sacred texts," almost all Muslims and Muslim scholars today support it. Manji is deceptive in implying that it is only pro-New World Order, dubiously Islamic interpreters like her who use ijihad.

Q3- The central nervous system and consciousness of 7th century desert- dwelling Muslim nomads and their biblical predecessors was presumably under constant assault: wars, ignorant superstition-in-action, economic survival issues, tyrannical male control, scorching heat, lack of negative ion generation, you name it! In light of this, why is present day Islam so intent on pushing the unassailable perfection of the prophet Muhammad, even to the extent of threatening violence to those who, for example, exercise their constitutional right to lampoon him and Islam's patriarchal interpretation of the sacred? Were Muhammed's central nervous system filter and his consciousness not subject to the same pressures as everyone else's? Couldn't he have thus been right about some things, wrong about others, and Jesus and Gautama Buddha, for example, with him?

A- We know Muhammad was wrong about some things, because the Qur'an says so. It describes how Muhammad had erred by focusing on a rich, powerful acolyte while ignoring a poor blind man who was trying to get his attention. So while there is a belief that Muhammad was sinless in some deep way--the story is that this heart was cleansed by angels when he was very young--he certainly wasn't always right.

The question of how to deal with blasphemy in a religiously-based society, or one that includes religious people, is a tricky one, and it isn't really related to whether Muhammad or Jesus or Buddha were always right about everything. It strikes Muslims as bizarre that the supposedly freedom-loving West imprisons those who interpret one historical episode, the Nazi holocaust, in a way the powers-that-be don't like -- while "freedom of speech" allows blasphemy against religion. From a Muslim perspective, and a freedom-loving American perspective, it would make more sense for freedom of speech to protect historical interpretation but not blasphemy against religion, which, like obscenity and pornography, is not the kind of category the Founding Fathers had in mind when they passed the Bill of Rights.

Q4- Dr. Barrett, the torture of so called "infidels" allegedly condemned to the Fire in the afterlife (as described in the Qur'an) is both stunning and confusing, especially in relation to the term "Allah the Merciful", and I did notice hints of the punitive in your first interview. But, really, the food served in the Islamic hell (Dhari) apparently rivals that of Scotland in loathsomeness (see Surah 88:6) and not only is scalding water mixed with pus forced on hell's inmates as a beverage (Surah 69:36), in some cases, the inmates skin is completely burnt off, so that new skin can be provided for additional (ongoing) torture (Surah 4:56). But terroristic anthropomorphic description aside, how can infinite punishment justifiably, logically be meted out for anyone's finite amount of sins?

A- Truthfully warning someone about what will happen if they behave a certain way is a merciful act; it is not "terrorism." Though I can see why some of the hellfire passages might strike those who don't know much about Islam as a bit excessive, like the high school driver education films showing the smashed, bleeding bodies of dead drunken drivers. Maybe that's because our culture just doesn't want to accept the grave spiritual consequences of human action -- probably because so many of us are acting so badly and therefore destined for such atrocious suffering. Better not to know that, just as for some it's better not to know what really happened on 9/11.

Anyway, the Qur'an's imagery of suffering in the afterlife is balanced with corresponding images of paradise and divine mercy. Just as Manji takes one "slave" passage out of context, anyone who focuses on the hellfire passages without their corresponding divine mercy and paradise passages is being deceptive.

My interpretation is that paradise and hell are perfectly-balanced eternal/internal states. If you're oppressing your neighbor, you're already in hell, you just don't fully realize it yet. When you die and leave your body, you'll realize with complete clarity whether your good acts outweigh the bad, because there will no longer be a material anchor to obscure the karmic consequences of all your actions. Many wisdom traditions, not just Islam, suggest that suffering beyond anything imaginable in this life, as well as beauty and love and pleasure beyond anything imaginable in this life, await us in the next world...and the way we experience the next world depends on how we act in this one. By making this clear, the Qur'an offers a mercy to all who take its message to heart.

By the way, some Islamic scholars say punishment isn't infinite, because we're all eventually going back to God. (Nothing other than God can be infinite.) Those who live badly, oppressing people and leading their neighbors away from the light toward the darkness, will just have a harder road back to God.

Q5- Is the most positive future for humanity theocratic, democratic, or something else, in your aspiration?

AWell, theocracy is a tautology, because God IS the ultimate ruler, whether or not we write that into our human constitutions. And democracy is an oxymoron, because people cannot rule themselves without the help of God.

To the extent that some people will inevitably rule over others, I think the real problem is how to create rule by good people rather than bad ones. As I wrote in my widely-read essay "Twilight of the Psychopaths," there is a millennia-old tendency for the very worst people, the psychopaths, to rise to the top of power hierarchies. Those who are creating a religion-free New World Order are trying to set up a global dictatorship of psychopaths. We need to recognize and expose them, opt out of the hierarchies they run, and start alternative hierarchies -- perhaps by finding a good person in a position of informal religious authority, and swearing an oath of allegiance (baya) to that person.

In traditional Moroccan/Andalusian Islamic culture, when there was a dispute, the holiest, most pious and most learned people, whether jurists or saints, would be called upon to resolve it. I think that system, with its flexible multiplicity of overlapping legal codes, its relative informality, and its orientation around genuinely good people as sources of authority, would be a promising model for the future of the planet.

TOP

---

Links to other thought provoking web sites
Church of the Imaginal Conception
Nude World Order For Us

---

   Interviews on Politics | Interviews on Sexuality  | Interviews on Religion  |  Home