It Is Truly A Sad, Sad Day
Monday, March 10, 2008

I give you the season finale of "Mr. Deity". No word yet whether Sony and Crackle will be signing the Big Guy for a third season.

Posted byPortlyDyke at 9:45 PM 6 comments  

Labels: Humor, Mr. Deity, Religion

Just in Time For Sunday -- Mr. Deity
Sunday, February 24, 2008

Posted byPortlyDyke at 12:02 AM 3 comments  

Labels: Humor, Mr. Deity, Religion

Mr. Deity!!!
Monday, February 11, 2008

Okay -- so you already know my "I'm your biggest fan" status with Mr. Deity -- and this most recent episode is probably my favorite since the very first episode -- so since they make such great book-ends, I've posted the new one first (Mr. Deity and the Good), and the original episode below it (Mr. Deity and the Evil).

(Note: It looks like this might be getting a lot of play at the Crackle server, so you may have to wait for it to load fully to get uninterrupted play.)

This was the premier episode -- truly -- they're all worth a watch.

Posted byPortlyDyke at 9:06 AM 2 comments  

Labels: Humor, Mr. Deity, Religion

Mr. Deity and The Limbo
Sunday, January 27, 2008

Sorry about no post yesterday -- I'll be back later tonight -- meanwhile"

Posted byPortlyDyke at 1:27 PM 1 comments  

Labels: Humor, Mr. Deity, Religion

I'm Sorry, I Don't Have Time to Eradicate You Today
Monday, January 21, 2008

After reading that we are facing yet another Congressional resolution telling us that "We are too, we are too, we are too a Christian Nation!" (despite a Constitution and a First Amendment that clearly indicates that we are not, we are not, we are NOT!) -- after weathering National Bible Week, and Huckabee's Xtian asshattery, and then re-reading Obama's "Call to Renewal" speech in which he says that a "sense of proportion" is needed from "both sides" when talking about "faith and democratic pluralism" (Really, Senator? Cuz I always thought that "proportion" meant "balance among the parts of something" -- which would require that the Religious Right do some serious catch-up in the tolerance department before we could attain a "sense of proportion") -- after all this, I find my previous aversion to fundie Xtianity blossoming into a full-fledged, mouth-foaming rage.

Which is probably exactly what they want -- so that they can validate their perfectly ridiculous projection that queers, atheists, fem'nists, lib'ruls, etc. ad nauseum, are out to destroy them.

Two things I've noticed about Xtianists:
1) They constantly project the worst of their own excesses onto others (homophobic ministers who preach against the depravity of drug use while snorting meth with gay hookers, screeching fiends who insist that their religion is under attack as they simultaneously legislate for the eradication of alternative religion or absence of religion in others, youth pastors who denounce the immorality of sex before marriage while they molest teenagers).
2) They are paranoid to a degree that I think would warrant institutionalization in any other context.

I can resonate with some of Jesus' messages (Love your fellow man, don't be judgmental, etc.) -- and in some respects, he seems like a real fun guy (too bad the Xtianists keep turning him into a real fungi).

However, I think there is a two-headed fly in the soup of Christianity (even in most of its more "liberal" forms) that is bound to be problematic in a pluralistic society:

Head #1 says: "No one comes to the father, except through me." ~ John 14:6
AND
Head #2 says: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." ~ Mark 16:15 "Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations" ~ Matthew 28:19

I've never been comfortable with anyone who claims to have The One-And-Only Real, True Answer to Everything, so Head #1 immediately sets off my alarm bells as a potential enemy of inclusive democracy -- I believe that this is why the founding fathers specifically prohibited government from passing any law that establishes religion.

And, as to Head #2 -- Well, that's kind of a problem for a pluralistic society, isn't it? Especially once you combine it with Head #1.

When they bring these two heads together, Xtians have the One True Path to heaven, PLUS a handy, dandy mandate to bring every single fucking creature on the planet to their way of believing -- whether they like it or not.

I believe that this mutated fly is at the heart of the massive projection and paranoia that Xtianists demonstrate -- they know that they are out to convert the entire world (or subjugate/execute those who won't convert). It's a time-honored tradition, as well as current custom for nearly all Christian sects, with a very few exceptions (Can you say missionary? I thought you could).

So of course they would think someone like me (lesbian, feminist, progressive, non-Christian) is just aching to destroy their "way of life" -- because that's what they are focused on -- suppressing and/or erasing everyone and everything that is NOT LIKE THEM.

It never occurs to them that I might be too involved with my own life to spend weeks and months planning to eradicate their religion -- they're too busy planning to eradicate people like me.

It's their "Christian Duty" to do so.

Unfortunately, this Christian Duty of Proselytizing the One True Faith has a long, ugly history as the motivator of heinous acts. The early Catholics instituted the destruction of pagan temples in Greece around 400 AD, Charlemagne beheaded 4,500 Saxons who got "caught" practicing paganism, thousands of Muslims were slaughtered during the Crusades, tens of thousands tortured and executed during the Inquisition, Hindus and Buddhists were persecuted and killed in Portugal, the Albigensians were eliminated . . . . the list goes on and on.

And then came the Reformation!

You'd think the Protestants (since they were "protesters") would have given some thought to whether this whole "convert or die" thing was something they really wanted in their "new and improved" version of Christianity -- but no -- now, since there were two (count 'em TWO!) kinds of Christians, it just meant double the converting (or double the dying).

Protestants joined in with fervor, killing 600,000 Catholics in Ireland in the space of a few years, burning whole bundles of "witches", and agreeing on one thing with their Catholic enemies -- that all Native American peoples must be "saved" -- or face the consequences. (Although they often seemed to have decided that once the "savages" were "salvaged", they might just need to be slaughtered anyway -- many of the Cherokee people who died on the Trail of Tears identified as Christian.)

I haven't even touched on the Bible Riots, abortion clinic bombings . . . . or the Holocaust

"Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ..." ~ Adolf Hitler

What a fun bunch! I bet you're just dying to have a beer with the lot of them.

My chief problem with all these feebly-veiled attempts at establishing a theocracy in this county is that this is the reality of "Religious History, Xtian Style" : Convert or Be Eradicated.

Plus the fact that Xtians seem excruciatingly unaware of how they project this agenda onto others.

OK -- my two chief problems are: Convert or Die, Unconscious Projection . . . and
the toxic synthesis of arrogant privilege and abject paranoia . . . .

Amongst my problems with Xtianity are such elements as . . . . Wait -- I'll come in again . . . .

Some years ago, I was walking through Home Depot. There was this guy who kept following me around. At first I thought he might be store security, but after about 20 minutes, I started to have a slightly creepier sense about who he was and what he might be up to. After visiting six or seven different departments, only to look up and find him lingering a few yards behind me, I finally turned and fixed him with a heavy dose of stink-eye -- at which point, he blurted out: "Why are you following me?!"

I'll bet he was a Xtian.

[Note to allies who identify as Christian: I have no problem with what you believe . . . for you . . . which you probably already know -- so no need to go there, OK?]

Posted byPortlyDyke at 6:39 PM 4 comments  

Labels: Dying Dinosaurs, Religion, Xtians

I've Been Saved
Sunday, January 13, 2008

It's true. I have embraced a personal relationship with my Deity, and once again, my faith has been rewarded.

See, just last night, I was praying that I would find something to blog today that wouldn't require me to take a lot of time and attention from the project that I'm blissfully in love with right now (and which I've been deeply involved in since noon).

And my prayers have been answered.

Who says there is no Supreme Being? Jesus Jesse saves. Can I get an Amen?!?!?!

Posted byPortlyDyke at 7:43 PM 2 comments  

Labels: Funny Fluff, Humor, Mr. Deity, Religion, Video

A Portly True Christmas Story
Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Once upon a time, I knew this rather interesting lesbian couple.

They were both daughters of Christian preachers from very strict denominations (must be something in the communion wafers).

They were both very active politically -- they were leaders in the lesbian-community where I lived, espousing extremely progressive, queer-positive, feminist values, fighting all sorts of -isms in that hands-on way that I admire, and both were slightly older than I at a time when a few years seemed to make more difference than it does to me now.

One of them was what might be termed a "nice girl" -- a quality which can be very comforting and appealing, but which she had realized was actually only 25% natural to her -- the other 75% having resulted from ingrained cultural entrainment as a "preacher's kid".

Her therapist (we all had therapists in those days) had suggested that she start exercising the muscles of her "bad girl", in order to come into balance, and the therapist challenged her to do three "bad girl" things before the end of the year.

One of these "bad girl" things is the story I'm about to tell.

A few days before Christmas, Nice Girl approached me and my (then) lover and asked for our assistance in her current bad-girl project. She (preacher's kid) and her partner (also preacher's kid) had devised a scheme for bad-girl action, but they needed accomplices. My lover and I were both more of the 75% bad/25% nice-girl persuasion, so of course we said yes.

This was the plan:

She and her partner would dress in full angelic regalia (white chintz gowns, tinsel-wrapped halos, and gauzy wings), and we would drive around to various outdoor locations which they had already scouted, where we would perform bad-girl feminist "actions". They needed a driver (since their gowns were all flowy and shit and possibly gas-pedal impeding), and a photographer -- which is were my lover and I came in.

I volunteered to drive, since I'm fairly clueless with a camera.

Once it was fully dark on Christmas Eve, we set out in a foreign make compact station wagon, I at the wheel, my lover in the passenger seat, and the two angels crammed in the back, their wire halos bumping the ceiling, with their stash of "action" supplies awkwardly stacked between them. The two soon-to-be bad girls guided us through the streets to the proposed site of our first action -- a full on, nearly life-sized plastic creche arrangement on a well-lit front lawn.

I must say, I was a bit daunted. The house lights indicated that someone was probably home, and the lawn dazzled with lights of the twinkly/Christmasy persuasion in addition to a very prominent halogen streetlight on the corner of the property. As we passed, I slowed down in what I hoped would be a convincing mimicry of "just out to see the decorations", and then pulled down the block a bit, where I parked in the shadows.

In my best film-noir mode, I adjusted the rear-view so that I could see both of the angels in the back seat and said, authoritatively: "OK. Here's what we're going to do. We're going to circle the block again, and get a better look at whether they're home, and if so, whether they're in the front room or anywhere they can see us easily. If it's clear, you two jump out, do the action and get your asses back to the car. THEN we circle the block once more and if no one's on the lawn because they heard or saw us, we snap the photo. Got it?"

Peering into the rear-view, I saw Nice Girl's eyes widen in awe. "You've done this before . . . . "

Well, no, actually, not exactly this, but I had done things like this before. I bit my cheek to keep from laughing. She just looked so earnest.

We proceeded with the plan. Drove around the block. Two very jittery angels jump out, do the action, plummet back toward the vehicle, and jump in -- then we circle and get the picture. I think we hit about ten nativity scenes that night, including one on the street which was most infamous for its XDX (Xmas Decoration Xcess -- you know -- the street that every town/city has, whimsically called "Wonderland" or "Candy Cane Lane" or "Festival of Lights"?) .

And when we were through, this is the earth-shatteringly bad thing we had done:

We then retired to their cozy manse for hot-chocolate.

You're scared of me now, aren't you.

Posted byPortlyDyke at 1:23 AM 16 comments  

Labels: Humor, Queers, Religion, True Stories, Xtians

The Deity Pulls My Ass Out of the Flames . . . Again
Tuesday, December 18, 2007

If you haven't subscribed to the mrdeity.com podcast yet, I have only four words (and six punctuation marks) for you:

What were you thinking?!?!?!

Posted byPortlyDyke at 12:01 AM 1 comments  

Labels: Humor, Mr. Deity, Religion

Thank Mr. Deity!
Saturday, December 1, 2007

I had no idea what the hell I was going to blog about tonight. I'm doggie-dog tired after an all-day seminar and continuing to tweak the new website, but then . . . . . . a miracle!!!

There really is a God.

Posted byPortlyDyke at 10:09 PM 3 comments  

Labels: Humor, Mr. Deity, Religion

Happy Mythologized Harvest Feast!
Thursday, November 22, 2007

I guess somebody had to mention this. Let it be me.

Let's just put the day into perspective, shall we?

When I was a kid, every Thanksgiving, we did some kind of project in school which involved black and white construction paper and staplers to make "Pilgrim hats", and brown construction paper with multi-colored construction paper (and staplers) to make "Indian headbands". We were then indoctrinated with a feel-good story about how the "Pilgrims" and the "Indians" came together in a wonderful environment of sharing and good-will and ate turkey and punkin' pie.

Of course, this was almost completely 100% crap. Pilgrims didn't dress that way, and neither did the members of the Wampanoag tribe (that probably did share a feast with the white "settlers" in 1621 -- if you can trust white historians. Jus' sayin').

During my grade school years, there was absolutely no education in my public school about the genocide of original North American tribal peoples, or forced relocation, or forced schooling and fostering of tribal children to white institutions and families. None. Zip. Nada.

On one hand, I am glad that awareness has changed somewhat in my lifetime -- public school curriculums (in my town, at least) now include information about how this continent was appropriated by white people at a devastating cost to its original inhabitants.

On the other hand, I'm disheartened that this is the second image in a Google image search on "Thanksgiving" (please note presence of small, female tribal person at lower right -- doesn't she look happy? And tiny? And insignificant?):

I can almost hear her now, saying: "Gee, I'm really glad these white people aren't killing me (yet). Let's eat!"

Another thing I'd like to point out is that the phrase "this most American of holidays" has not only become inanely overused (Google it in quotes -- I dare you!), but is only accurate to the extent that you consider "America" as a reference to a continent or two (as in North and South), rather than "America=USA".

People all over the world have celebrated their harvest season for thousands -- perhaps tens of thousands -- of years. Tribal groups on this continent had been celebrating the "Three Sisters" in prayer and thanks-giving during autumnal harvest gatherings long before white people arrived in the "Americas".

The Moon Festival has been celebrated in China for 3000 years or more, Sukkot is recorded as the first observance at Solomon's temple (approx. 955 B.C.E.), the earliest recorded celebrations of Onam are 800 AD, and indigenous tribal people all over the world have remembered to stop after the harvest and say: "Gee. This is great. Look at all this stuff we have! I'm grateful to (the earth/the gods/goddesses/ancestors/spirits/whatever) that I have all this. Let's eat a bunch of it right now! Then -- let's get drunk and dance! . . . . . After we have a nap."

Personally, I enjoy Thanksgiving more than most federal U.S. holidays -- no presents to buy, no patriotic fervor, no commemoration of wars fought, struggles waged, or lives lost. Its traditionally soporific menu and focus on gratitude fit well with the life I want to create for myself, and the world I want to help create and live in -- a world of peace and bounty for all.

However, I tend to think of Thanksgiving not as "this most American of all holidays", but "this most Human of all holidays".

Lest you think I would forget, in my tryptophan-induced semi-coma, that it is STILL National Bible Week -- I'm offering you my first stab at LOLCats Bible Translation:

Posted byPortlyDyke at 1:03 PM 1 comments  

Labels: National Bible Week, Religion, Xtians

Things I Don't Mind About the Bible
Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Well, it's Hump Day for National Bible Week, and I thought I'd clarify some things.

I don't hate the Bible. There are some things that I don't even mind about the Bible, such as:

1. Confusing and Contradictory Messages: God says "Thou shalt not kill", but then orders his chosen people to "slay both man and woman, infant and suckling".
   
2. False Prophecies: Mark said that Jesus would return before his followers' generation was dead. Still waiting.
3. Impossible Conundrums: Who did Adam's sons marry?
   
4. Passive/Agressive, Pissy, Mind-Fucky Deity:
   
• Let's say Adam's sons (as it is sometimes argued) did marry their own sisters, but then, later, God declares that incest is a sin? If you argue that this was a necessity given the limited amount of DNA God had to work with a the beginning, then why does God set Noah's family up for yet another incest-fest by destroying most of the available human gene-pool?
• There's a whole section of Exodus where Moses tries to talk God out of destroying the Israelites, and basically wins the day because he convinces the Almighty that it just wouldn't look good for Him.
  
• And seriously -- from Day One? That whole Garden of Eden thing looks like a gigantic setup:
  

As whack-doodle as I think some of this is, I will repeat that I don't mind it. The Bible, in itself, does not drive me crazy every day. It's not like I sit around brooding about it all the time -- unlike my Xtian brother-in-law who once informed me that he prays every day that I will get "saved", and turn from my sinful "lifestyle".

The Bible doesn't bother me at all. It's what people DO with it that chaps my ass.

If my brother-in-law wants to think that I'm going to fry in an extra-hot section of Hell (most likely extra-hot because all the lesbians are there, doing their lesbian thang), that's his right.

If he wants to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, because that's the number you get when you add up the generations listed in the Bible, that's his right.

If he wants to get all fixated on the evil homos (who are only mentioned 4-5 times in the Bible, three of these vague references with debatable meanings), but somehow breeze past the adulterers (who are mentioned more than 40 times in the Bible), that's his right.

HOWEVER -- if he -- or any Xtian, for that matter --wants to take his "inerrant word of God" and use it to legally determine: Where I can live, and how, and with whom I can make love, and who I can marry, and what can be taught in public schools, and whether I can enjoy all the rights that are afforded to heterosexual citizens, and whether my uterus is my own possession, and whether people who believe in other books can live their lives free of harassment -- well, that's the shit that bugs me.

The day that this priest can finish his opening prayer in Congress uninterrupted,


I'll be glad to start talking about National Bible Week readings being included in the Congressional Record.

I said I'd talk about it.

Posted byPortlyDyke at 3:25 PM 5 comments  

Labels: Humor, National Bible Week, Religion, Video, Xtians

Psalm 23
Monday, November 19, 2007

Psalms 23 (Lolcatz Bibel) -- (KJV translation for the lolcat-impaired)
1 Ceiling Cat iz mai sheprd (which is funni if u knowz teh joek about herdin catz LOL.) He givz me evrithin I need.

2 He letz me sleeps in teh sunni spot an haz liek nice waterz r ovar thar.

3 He makez mai soul happi an maeks sure I go teh riet wai for him. Liek thru teh cat flap insted of out teh opin windo LOL.

4 I iz in teh valli of dogz, fearin no pooch, bcz Ceiling Cat iz besied me rubbin' mah ears, an it maek me so kumfy.

5 He letz me sit at teh taebl evn when peepl who duzint liek me iz watchn. He givz me a flea baff an so much gooshy fud it runz out of mai bowl LOL.

6 Niec things an luck wil chase me evrydai an I wil liv in teh Ceiling Cats houz forevr.

In honor of National Bible Week, please bear with the commercial at the front of the video below -- after all, G-d needs $$$ too! :(

Posted byPortlyDyke at 1:20 AM 0 comments  

Labels: Blogging, Humor, Mr. Deity, National Bible Week, Religion

It's National Bible Week -- Party Down, Y'all!!!
Sunday, November 18, 2007

Even though Congress tried to steal my thunder by celebrating National Bible Week two weeks early (rass'n'frass'n early celebrants), I will not be denied my right to join in the festivities toutin' -- Teh Best-Sellin' Tome of All Time^[tm]!

Since the National Bible Associations says that, even if you aren't a Christian, "Everyone else ought to read the Bible to better understand art and literature," I thought I'd run a daily entry in honor of NBW to help all you culturally-deprived non-bible readers.

However, I've stumbled on another thorny issue (there are so many these days!) -- Which version of the Bible should I use?

Since the National Bible Association doesn't endorse any particular version, and there are so many of them (over 450 English translations alone), I thought I'd go for a version that was likely to resonate with my readers, and start right at the beginning!

Every day this week, I'll be bringing you a little Bible verse (and some commentary), so that you, too, can begin to understand art and literature.

If you're feeling extra-enthused about NBW, why not pitch in and help by translating a few verses? Go forth and giv kittehs sum hlp plz.

Posted byPortlyDyke at 12:23 PM 2 comments  

Labels: Cats, Lolcatz, National Bible Week, Religion, Xtians

While I'm Whining, Watch This
Sunday, November 11, 2007

The new season of Mr. Deity started last month -- here's episode #2:

Can I just say that I love these guys?

Posted byPortlyDyke at 12:58 PM 2 comments  

Labels: Humor, Mr. Deity, Religion

My Video Deconstruction
Monday, November 5, 2007

I struggled for a long time about why, whether, and how to post my Proverbs 6:16 video in the Jesus and Teh Gay post. I talked it over in advance with my Beloved, who serves as an unfailing "integrity compass" for me when I am flailing in the deep waters of my own intentions and desires. I also asked a blogger for whom I have penultimate respect to preview it and give me feedback.

Here were some of the questions I asked myself (and then asked my Beloved) -- (plus questions that my Beloved asked me that I hadn’t thought about yet) -- before I posted that video:

1. What is my intention in posting this video at all?
2. If someone else posted a similar video about me, would I be mad/upset or feel that they had represented me unfairly?
3. Do I think this video will actually change anything, or am I simply succumbing to my “wit-demonz”?
4. Am I using tactics which, if used by someone who I consider an “adversary”, I would think were incomplete in presenting a “whole idea” or "whole picture"?
5. Does this video fit with my basic principles and ethics?
   

In truth, I haven’t answered all these questions for myself, and I opted to post the video and “let the shit fly where it may”.

I do have some answers to some of these questions though -- answers that I would never have had, if I hadn't asked these questions, or had them asked of me.

Question #1: What is my intention in posting this video at all?

My intention in posting the video is for people to understand that there are many, many, many interpretations and translations of the Bible, and that one of the problems with basing an institutional, legislative, or governmental structure on such a freely-interpreted religious text is that the text itself can be used to condemn or promote nearly any behavior that you want to either condemn or promote, a theme I've touched on before.

Question #2: If someone else posted a similar video about me, would I be mad/upset or feel that they had represented me unfairly?

I know that I am willing to be held accountable to the principles which I espouse.

When I breach my espoused principles, I'm willing to have others point this out to me, and I am willing to make apologies and amends if I think I've breached these principles. So, in that sense, I don't think that it's outside my own ethics to ask people who proclaim themselves as "Bible-believing Christians" to align with the things that they profess.

If I had claimed myself as an adherent to a particular text such as the Bible, and I weren't living in accordance with that text, I'd actually WANT people to point this out to me.

Question #3: Do I think this video will actually change anything, or am I simply succumbing to my “wit-demonz”?

I have found that I do have the hope that this video will change something.

I don't think it will (necessarily) change the minds of "bible-thumpers" (but I can hope, can't I?). However, I believe that many people in US culture are affected by "vestigial biblical overflow" (VBO) without realizing it.

I personally know "inerrant-word-of-god" type Christians who condemn homosexuality, consign women to subservient roles, and entertain a host of other judgments, and who do so because they believe that they are required to do so by the Bible -- whether or not their own actions are consistent with the actual mandates of the Bible, whether or not their interpretations of what the Bible says match up with literal translations, and whether or not their life experience with gays, women, etc. give them other, observable facts that might contradict what they are "supposed" to think/do/judge.

Because it is their religion, and I respect the right of any human to believe as they wish to believe, all I can say is: "OK, so that's the path they've chosen."

However, I think that there are people who don't claim Christianity as their religion, who are nonetheless affected by VBO.

These may be people who were "raised Christian", but who had deep, troubling questions about the obvious contradictions that they observed in the religion of their upbringing. (For me, this manifested very early on, as I witnessed the Vietnam War playing out on TV and compared it to the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" that I received at church, Vacation Bible School, Sunday School, and Catechism classes.)

These may be people who were raised with no particular religious focus, or in an entirely different religion from Christianity, but who were nonetheless steeped in the Judeo-Christian background noise that saturates this country's media, holidays, and basic cultural assumptions.

Example: Many of us grew up with the notion that being homosexual, or getting divorced, -- or being different in any way -- is "bad" and "wrong" (or at the very least, "undesirable" or "strange"). But how many of us were actively actually encouraged to ask the question: "Why?"

In fact, if you grew up like me, you were actively encouraged to NEVER ask the question: "Why is it bad/wrong to be homosexual/get divorced/be different? How does this actually harm anyone?"

So, at a time when there are pundits and celebrities throwing around Biblical justifications for oppression and bigotry, and bullying others with a book, I do want to post information about the many other possible interpretations that are based on literal translation of this ancient religious text.

So that people can, perhaps, begin to see how VBO might be affecting them, and how arbitrary and numerous and varied the interpretations actually are.

Question #4: Am I using tactics which, if used by someone who I consider an “adversary”, I would think were incomplete in presenting a “whole idea” or "whole picture"?

Ah, and now I come to the thorny problem.

The honest answer, when I ask myself this question is: "Yes, I think I used tactics which present a partial picture rather than a whole context."

I find a million justifications rising in my mind as to why this is OK -- but none of them really satisfy me.

I find this maddening sometimes.

In truth, I don't think that I can ever provide a complete picture. In five or ten years, the images included in that video will be virtually meaningless.

Which is the same problem I have with the Bible, or the Koran, or the Sutras -- that we're trying to create a living code of behavior from a book or writings that were pertinent thousands of years in the past.

If I'm honest with myself, this video doesn't "sit" quite right with me yet.

Yes, I think it is "fair" (if that's the word) in terms of asking people who claim to be Christian to adhere to their own religious texts.

However, if I think about how little most people actually know about the Bible, it's possible that the even the espoused Christians portrayed may not actually know that much about the text they claim to be espousing. This seems pretty evident to me when I see something like Ann Coulter claiming that Christians are "perfected Jews" (a concept which does not appear anywhere in the New Testament, as far as I can read).

I guess the biggest difficulty I have with the video is that it points attention toward these people, while I would really like to point my attention elsewhere -- to more expansive vistas.

Which brings me to:

Question #5: Does this video fit with my basic principles and ethics?

No -- and specifically, it flies in the face of one principle I'm working with a lot lately: What you resist, persists.

And another principle which I work on daily: Don't preach to the choir -- if you have a beef, take it to the person you have a beef with. (This is a bit more problematic for me, as I don't know how I'm going to manage a heart-to-heart with Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, Coulter, Gonzales, or Rumsfeld -- but then again, you never know!)

I learned a lot in this process though, and I think that's the real point of any experience.

Posted byPortlyDyke at 10:45 PM 3 comments  

Labels: Look How Clever I Am, Mainstream Media, Personal Ethics, Queers, Religion, Spirituality

Fun Facts to Know and Tell: Jesus & Teh Gay
Friday, November 2, 2007

These days, you run into a lot of people who like to tell “stories”.

It’s really fun to tell stories.

One of the favorite type of stories that many people like to tell are “Bible Stories”.

Isn't that great?!?!

The problem is, some people like to tell “Bible Stories” that aren’t actually in the Bible.

I run into this problem a lot when people want to tell Bible Stories about “Teh Gay”, so I thought I’d put together a little primer for people who may not have actually read the Bible (and it turns out a lot of people haven’t actually read the Bible – especially people who like to tell Bible Stories and make them into big, fun cudgels to hit other people with!).

Fact or Fiction? Jesus thinks Teh Gay are sinful, and He said so.

Fiction.

Here’s an electronic copy of one of my very favorite Bible Tracts (click for animation):















Jesus never said anything about Teh Gay, or “Homosexuals” (or “Sodomites”, even).

It’s possible that it slipped his mind. He was awfully busy, and he only had three years to spread his message about how people should cast logs from their own eyes before they cast the motes from their brother’s eye and stuff.

Now that I think about it, though . . . . it would have been kind of hard for him to say anything about “Homosexuals”(or “Sodomites”, even), because there was no word in ancient Aramaic, Koine Greek, or Mishnaic Hebrew (the three languages commonly spoken in the Holy Land at the time) that means “Homosexual” (or “Sodomite”, even).

None of these languages had a word that meant “homosexual”, because at that time, the concept of a group of people who were “homosexuals” didn’t exist.

There were sexual activities that were prohibited by certain religions or cultures at the time (including having sex while on your period), but these were considered to be actions that anyone might participate in.

The idea that certain people were homosexual wasn’t conceptualized until the late 1800s. (The word “homosexual” is first recorded in print in a tract by Karl-Maria Kertbeny, which he published anonymously.)

In Biblical times, it was assumed that everyone was heterosexual, but that they might engage in homosexual acts. (So maybe Larry Craig is keeping up an ancient biblical tradition!)

Your head must be a-flutter at this point -- you must be wondering:

"But Portly Dyke! If there wasn’t any word for Teh Gay in Jesus’ time, what’s with all the 'Sodomite-This', and 'Homosexual-That' in the writings of the apostles, since Jesus himself had nothing to say about this pervey population?"

Well, as it turns out, the words which have been translated as "sodomite" and "homosexual" (from either “Kadesh” OT Hebrew or “Arsenokoitai/Malakoi” NT Greek) don't actually translate as "sodomite/homosexual".

I'm going to concentrate on "Kadesh" --as there is some reason to believe that "arsenokoitoi" might have been a word that Paul/Saul of Tarsus just made the fuck up! (OK, sorry -- I lost my "voice" there for a moment -- now moving back into light-hearted, comforting Biblical-scholar mode . . . . .).

“Kadesh”, in Old Testament Hebrew, refers directly to the concept of prostitution -- and not just any old run-of-the-mill street-walkin’, either!

Specifically, Kadesh means: “Temple Prostitute” (the word "Kadesh" is translated literally as "Sacred One/Sanctuary", and shares roots with the word "Kohdesh" -holy/sacred). Kadesh is the word for a male who has been dedicated in a pagan temple to provide sexual services in celebration of a specific deity.

Interestingly, the female version of “kadesh” (kadesh-ah) has always been translated in the OT as "harlot" or "prostitute", but as early as 500 C.E. (AD) the male "kadesh" magically became “sodomite” (even though there IS no word “sodomite” in Hebrew) – See, Look Here:






Click image for clarity.

The word for “Sodomite” (as in “dweller/person/man of Sodom”) would have been (and, in the OT, is always written as):
אַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם (pronounced: Ahn-shey S'dahm)
(Sodom) (Men of)
which looks (and sounds) nothing like "kah-desh" -- קָדֵשׁ.

Now, we all know that Sodom was a very, very bad place (and that is actually a Bible story) – but here’s what the Old Testament has to say on the precise reason why Sodom was such a very, very bad place:

Ezekiel 16:
49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fulness of bread, and careless ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination (תוֹעֵבָה Toyevah) before Me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.

So now we know – the dwellers of Sodom did, indeed, commit “abomination” (תוֹעֵבָה Toyevah).

No one knows exactly when they were committing abomination, but some historians figure it was around 1892 BCE/BC.

A lot of Bible story-tellers like to say that the "abomination" in Sodom was "homosexuality", but from what Ezekiel says above (it's estimated that the book of Ezekiel was written in 500 BCE/BC), there may be reason to question whether the whole "Bad Ass Homos in Sodom" qualifies as a real Bible story, but there may be a real reason for opponents of SCHIP to be worried. Uh-oh.

For those who want to argue about the sins of Sodom from a New Testament angle -- Jude did write about "strange flesh" in reference to Sodom and Its sins, but this may have been a reference to people who are into rape (or specifically, into raping angels -- Wow! -- that's just got to be Extra-bad karma!) -- but Jude was writing at around 50-60 CE /AD.

So who you gonna trust?

Someone writing one thousand 392 years after the event? (*Ezekiel saw the wheel, way up in the middle of the air*)

Or someone writing one thousand 948 years after the event? (Hmm. Can't think of a good song about Jude at the moment . . . . OK -- how about this? *Hey Jude, don't make it bad . . . *)

These are tough choices, to be sure.

And the question remains: Exactly Which abomination did Sodom commit? (Cuz, the OT lists a whole bunch of things that are Toyevah/abomination).

Sooooo ---- Ding Ding Ding Ding!!!! It's time for a round of Abomination BINGO!!!

Was it:

• Remarrying a woman you sent away/divorced? ~ Deuteronomy 24:4
• Sacrificing while you're wicked? ~ Hebrews 15
• Following the way of the wicked? ~ Hebrews 15
• Thoughts of wickedness? ~ Hebrews 15
• Melting down an idol and keeping the gold? ~ Deut 7:25-26
• Bringing this gold into your house? ~ Deut 7:25-26
• Being Proud of Heart? ~ Proverbs 6:5
• Committing wickedness when you're a King? (Uh-oh, Georgie!) ~ Prov 16:12
• Sacrificing a blemished ox, or sheep to the Lord? ~ Deut 17:1
• Lying with mankind as with womankind? ~ Lev 18:22
• Making your children walk though fire? ~ Deut 18
• Consulting divination? ~ Deut 7:25-26
• Consulting a ghost? ~ Deut 7:25-26?
• Wronging the poor and needy? ~ Ezk 18:
• Stealing something? ~ Ezk 18:
• Breaking your word? ~ Ezk 18:
• Worshipping idols? ~ Ezk 18:
• Charging interest? (Uh-oh, Corporate Banking!) ~ Ezk 18:
• Giving someone more than 40 lashes?(Uh-oh, "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques"!) ~ Deut 25
• Muzzling an ox when it is treading corn? ~ Deut 25
• Not marrying your dead brother's wife? (You know, she can loose your shoe and spit in your face for that!) ~ Deut 25
• Intervening in your husband’s fight with another man? ~ Deut 25
• Weighing something illegally? ~ Deut 25
• Watching while your brother's oxen and sheep are driven away and not bringing them back? Or his ass? Or his garment? Or not helping him if his ass or his ox fall down? ~ Deut 22
• Wearing garments not assigned to your gender? (Uh-oh, Me!) ~ Deut 22
• Making a graven or molten image and set it up secretly? ~ Deut 27
• Justifying the wicked? Condemning the Righteous? ~ Prov 17:15
• Saying "Peace, peace" when there is no peace? (Uh-oh, Military-Industrial Complex!) ~ Jeremiah 8:11

All of these things (and more!) are cited directly as “abomination” (תּוֹעֲבַת – Toyavah) in the Old Testament .

If you're trying to choose the "correct" abomination for what qualifies as true "Sodom-y", and you feel confused, don't feel too bad -- I, too, once felt confused about Sodom and just what, exactly, it had done to earn the firey, brimstoney wrath of God.

And that's when I discovered it --

THE pinnacle list of abominations (תועבות) -- That's right! --

(Please visit back tomorrow for my spiritual deconstruction of the struggle I went through in deciding whether or not to post this video at all.)

The point being: Sodom’s “Abomination” could have been any one of the things listed above. G-d just isn’t all that specific about it (except where He is specific about it).

Then again, like Jesus, God might have been very busy at the time of the Ezekiel 16:49-50 “snowflake” memo (like Son, like Father, as they always say!).

The moral of today's post is: 1) If you're going to tell Bible stories, make sure that you tell stories that are actually in the Bible, and 2) if you want to use a certain Bible story to validate your point of view, understand that another person might use the same Bible story (or any other wonderful Bible story) to invalidate your point of view, or validate a completely different point of view.

Cuz that's what's really FUN about the Bible!

Posted byPortlyDyke at 9:40 PM 12 comments  

Labels: Homophobia, Queers, Religion, Xtians

Choosy Dieties
Saturday, September 29, 2007

So, commenter Nik.E.Poo asked:

"In terms of the infinite continuum of reality, where does choice fall in the D.U.C.?"

Commenter Lambness pointed out the term "recursion" and the concept of "discrete infinity".

All rather dizzying, no?

So, I will attempt to explain my view of this, starting from my primary hypothesis that the D.U.C. tastes just like chicken. (And tofu. And dust. And quark-poo.)

To understand what I am about to express, we will have to agree that the usual perspective that we, as physical human beings, have on Time and Space is just that -- A perspective.

Let's say that Time . . . . . perhaps . . . . (I include that "perhaps" for the explorationally timid) . . . . is not really linear. Let's say that all moments in Time are actually concurrent, and that we are choosing to perceive and experience Time as linear.

My favorite metaphor is -- a great novel -- perhaps you've already read it, perhaps you haven't read it -- but it's sitting on your desk, bookshelf, or in the basket on the back of your toilet. Let's say it's a novel that you read before, and you loved it. (If you "don't read" -- and I know some people who do not, and hold this as a point of pride -- simply substitute "move" for "novel" and "watch" for "read")

Jeez, I can't believe I just included that -- but I did.

Anyway, back to that great novel that you've read before --

Why in the world would you read it again?

But you do.

You read it again, even though you already know how it turns out.

You read it again, and perhaps, even enjoy it more than the first time you read it, because now, you're not all about how it turns out, but about how it unfolds. You notice nuances and structure and meaning that were not apparent in your first fascinated reading of the novel, because your focus has change.

And every time you read this great novel, the novel itself is changed by the fact that you read it.

(If you can't handle paradox, you should probably stop reading now, or take two aspirin. Or four.)

In other words -- all the possible novels of this Universe have already been written, but every time any one of those novels is read/perceived/experienced (for the first time or the non-nillionth time) that novel is expanded and transformed.

This may seem counter-intuitive -- how can a novel be changed by being read? Well, even at the most physical, matter-based level, when you pick up a book and thumb through its pages, oils and residual tissue from your fingertips join with the pages -- that's why historians wear gloves when handling very ancient or valuable texts. If you sneeze while your reading, this matter exchange escalates even further -- or if you read it in the rain at the bus-stop, or while you're slouched over a table at Mickey Dee's. Perhaps now you're grasping the true spiritual depth of the ancient Koan:

"I CAN HAZ CHEEZBURGER?"

"MY CHEEZBURGER. YOU NO CAN HAZ."

The point is, even when you put the book back on the shelf, or in your garage sale -- even if you never read that book -- the book still exists.

The notion that all possible stories of the Universe already exist may lead some to conclude that things are "pre-destined" -- but if Time is not linear but rather, concurrent, nothing can be "pre"-destined, as there is no "pre" and no "post".

So, the D.U.C. is like the owner (and author) of an infinite library of stories about Itself. In Its fully unified state, there's really no reason to "read" the books. So, It chooses to mitose into various forms and levels of enfolding intelligence, some of which (human, for example) are designed to forget that the entire library already exists, and so begin to read the stories one at a time (incarnation), in a linear direction (past to future).

Then, where is Choice? Well, there's one little thing I neglected to point out. Each of these novels is really a choose-your-own-path book -- you know -- if you want to find out what happens to character A, skip to page 73, if you want to find out what happens to character B, skip to page 91, etc..

This is the place(for me) that the concept of parallel universes comes in -- but that is a whole 'nother can of worms that is too big to stuff into this post -- perhaps another time (scratch that -- in some reality, I've already written it, and in some reality, I never will).

It kind of hurts my brain to think about this stuff sometimes, and I believe that is because the brain is actually designed as a tool to perceive Time in a manner (linear/finite) that doesn't fully represent its true state (concurrent/infinite). If you want to read something that takes you to a more transcendent, experiential version of these concepts, try reading Jorge Borges' The Library of Babel (What luck -- the entire text online!), or Donald Barthelme's excellent "Nothing is Not a Nail".

I want to point out that I don't believe that the human perception of linear time is necessarily the only way the the D.U.C. is playing with itself. I think it's entirely possible that other species and/or constructs are designed to play with various aspects of paradox and apparent limitation/separation in entirely different ways.

Some people say, for example, that animals do not (and perhaps, can not) perceive linear Time. Since I don't speak dolphin or turtle or snake or spider or cow (yet), I'm not ready to make a conclusion about this.

I will say that, so far, it's my experience that human beings are the only known earthly creatures who obsess on measuring Time and carving it up into calendar squares, hours, minutes, second, nano-seconds, etc.. It's almost as if by divvying it up, we're trying to make more of it. Which, if my hypothesis about time is correct, is an impossible (but interesting and, ironically, time-consuming) endeavor.

To sum up -- in my cosmology, there is Choice -- but the choice rests exclusively in which story to read/re-read, and how to interpret it. Since Time doesn't truly exist as linear, you might say that your consciousness of your own existence and the choices that you make in interpreting that experience are, literally, the concurrent creation of the Universe in "real time".

How 'bout those aspirin, now? Or, for being a dutiful reader and plowing through this post, you can haz cheezburger. Or not.

Posted byPortlyDyke at 10:52 AM 5 comments  

Labels: Religion, Spirituality

Explaining The D.U.C.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007

In my last post, I referred to my concept of "A Divine, Unifying Consciousness" and a commenter asked:

"Ok, seriously. In eastern philosophies, total consciousness is often equated to or represented by the sublime state of emptiness. In western philosophies, consciousness is often described as self-awareness, cognition and engagement. What is the flavor of the D.U.C.? How is it manifest?"

The answer is: The D.U.C. tastes like chicken.

Ok, seriously.

While I prefer using the term "Divine Unifying Consciousness", I once toyed with naming it "ATIWOSB" -- All That Is, Was, Or Shall Be . . . . . but it seemed, I dunno -- a little clunky?

(Warning: If you do not have a sense of humor, turn back NOW)

ANYWAY . . . . while I prefer the term D.U.C., I do not have any problem using the word "god" (capitalized or uncapitalized) and I often do use this word, for ease of reference when discussing matters of a spiritual nature with the more traditionally-inclined, for the purposes of connectivity.

There was a time when the "G" word caused me to break out in a rash, but, despite being a devote muff-diver for most of my life, I never went to the point where I used "Goddess" as a substitute (primarily because I had a lover who would shriek "Oh Goddess!" when taken to certain heights of lesbianic pleasure, and it was all I could do not to giggle every time it happened).

So, I'll try to boil my cosmology down to a the simplest metaphor possible (nearly, if not always, a dire mistake):

I am a game that God is playing with Itself.

When I look into the laws of physics, and the tendencies of biological and chemical entities, I keep seeing this "many from one" and "many back to one" cycle, and a recurring theme of what I call "enfolding intelligences" (My body has organs and tissues, these organs and tissues have cells, these cells have molecules, these molecules have atoms, these atoms have protons, electrons, and neutrons, and the electrons and neutrons have quarks -- and I have a sneaking suspicion that, even though science generally names quarks as the smallest unit of matter, it is quite possible that we'll someday understand even smaller enfolding structures - - ". . . the book says we may be done with the past, but the past isn't done with us".)

When I look into the most ancient creation myths -- I see a consistent theme: The physical Universe always manifests first as some form of a dichotomy or paradox (Light/Dark, Male/Female, Heaven/Earth). This paradox often/usually arises from some sort "unknowable One-ness" (a cosmic egg, a pre-existent chaos, a zohar, etc.).

Stay with me here.

With all that mass of seemingly variant spiritual, religious, cultural, and scientific opinion swirling around me, how did I come to the conclusion that I am a game that God is playing with Itself?

I looked into my "natural tendencies", and the tendencies of matter and other beings around me.

If you remove the pressures of obtaining food/water, building/maintaining shelter, keeping children alive, etc. from a human being (for the more civilized, this would include removing the need to "go to work") -- what do human beings do? (Hint: We call it "vacation".)

They play.

They play at all sorts of things. The invent sports and crossword puzzles and sodoku and backgammon. They swing and slide and swim and run around.

You don't have to "teach" a child to play. You might teach it "what" to play, or "how" to play a certain thing, but generally, play comes naturally to humans. Most animals also engage in play, and I'm not so "form-ist" as to think it isn't possible that rocks may have some form of play (although their games are probably very, very long, comparitively).

Biologists will tell you that ecosystems are primarily governed by stochastic (chance) events. Meanwhile, designers of "artificial intelligence" face the challenge of creating "fuzzy logic" systems that can allow mechanization of tasks that are normally reserved for human beings, or harnessing certain algorithms that seem to govern stochastic, organic events such as evolution. One of the things the creators of AI work with? Game Theory.

So, what if the entire physical Universe is a great big crossword puzzle, with all the answers at the back of the book, or in tomorrow's paper? You don't work a crossword puzzle that is too easy for you (or not for long), you don't work a crossword puzzle that is impossible to solve (or not for long), and you don't (usually) cheat and just copy the answers from the solution page -- cause what would be the fun in that? Game designers understand that, in order to be "fun", the game has to have a certain balance of challenge and resolution.

I believe that the D.U.C. was, at one point, a single "un-self-conscious" point that got bored with itself, and created the diversion of mitosing itself into various bits of seemingly different matter. Just for fun. From a purely physical science POV, I would say that this happened prior to the "Big Bang", BTW.

Because all matter (and consciousness) arose from that original one-ness, but is seemingly different, the "clues" are embedded in every part of the universe -- in chemistry, spiritual experience, biology, astronomy, emotion, thought, etc..

So, in my spiritual practice, the "Golden Rule" is still applicable -- but not from any "moral" place, because it's "good" or "right" to treat others as I would be treated, but from a place of energetic integrity -- because, essentially, they are me, at some level.

That's a challenge, I'll admit -- part of the challenge, I would say -- because they don't always look like me at first glance (quarks, rocks, other humans, animals, trees, planets, galaxies) -- but if I believe that the D.U.C. is everywhere, in everything, I have to assume that anything that I see as "separate" from me could possibly hold a clue to 10-Down, or 25-Across.

So, far from believing that "God" is impersonal, I see "God" as being both intensely personal and trans-personal. However, I think that the D.U.C. is more interested in having experience than in judging it, and I think that if you present this concept to people, many of them take it personally, and think that it means God "doesn't care".

Just because I don't judge you doesn't mean I don't care about you, however.

As above, so below. As within, so without.

Now, many people may wonder how I came to such a belief system. I'll blog about that more in the future, I suppose, but basically, I believe asI do because I see it reflected in nature, in biology, in chemistry, and in my experience, and I suspect that there are more "clues" in the offing.

And truly, I believe this because I've found it simply works better, and is more fun than the alternatives I've tried.

IMHFO, the D.U.C. is manifest in the ecosystems that are all around me, and that form and adapt and re-form. The D.U.C. is manifest in the fact that I am breathing air and taking in molecules and atoms that might have once been a part of your body -- so where do "I" really start and end? The D.U.C. is manifest in the paradoxical nature of light itself (particle or wave?), and in the beautiful chaotic order of a mandelbrot set.

Like I said: The D.U.C. tastes like chicken.

Posted byPortlyDyke at 3:50 PM 21 comments  

Labels: Religion, Spirituality

Meta-Physician
Sunday, September 23, 2007

I recently got into a online conversation about my spiritual beliefs.

I often experience some difficulty when I get into these types of conversations, because there are so many “hair-trigger” words that seem set people off into assumptions about what they think about these words, rather than listening to, or asking about, what I might think about the words I’m using.

If, for example, I use the word “metaphysical”, a lot of people assume that I am just a woo-woo nutcase, incapable of rational thought, and probably burning incense to keep the bad juju away. (Come to think of it, I do burn incense to keep the bad juju away, but let’s just gloss past that for the moment. I promise that I will explain the scientific basis for my burning of incense at some point.)

I’ve experienced, too, that when I enter into conversation about my spiritual beliefs with people who say that they are atheist or agnostic, they often assume that I’m trying to convert them to my way of thinking or something. I don’t find this surprising, and I can hardly blame them for having a certain “spiritual gag reflex” -- since most public dialogue about spirituality (at least in the good old USofA) comes from organized religions that place heavy emphasis on the concept that they have the “right” answers, and strong, if not obsessive, tendencies toward proselytization.

However, precisely because of the spiritual beliefs that I hold, in my spiritual structure, proselytizing would be one of the few things that could even remotely parallel the concept of “sin” that exists in most traditional religions (I don’t really believe in the concept of “sin” as they express it). I may, or may not, expound on that as I continue, but I want to be clear that one of the foundational aspects of my own spiritual approach is that, not only is every being completely entitled to their own view of “what is so” about the universe and reality they inhabit/experience, but their unique exploration and understanding of that view is critical to the evolutionary nature of the universe and reality that I inhabit/experience.

So, if you hear me using the word “metaphysics”, what I mean is this: Metaphysics is exactly that – the “meta” version of the garden-variety physics we humans are still struggling to understand from a purely physic-al (chemical) level.

I’m strongly convinced that the concept “As Above, So Below – As Within, So Without” is valid – and not because I think some bearded dude in the sky has got it all planned out for me. I do believe in a divine unifying consciousness (what some people refer to as “god”, I guess) -- some thread that runs through this entire puzzle -- but I think it would be sheer arrogance to say that I understood the totality of that consciousness.

I have some very clear beliefs, a lot of questions, and a strong spiritual framework that works for me.

Get that last phrase? It works for me. I don’t need it to work for anyone else, cause it works for me. If it works for you, too, I’m glad to share.

Those of you who have hung around with me at Shakesville’s virtual pub on Fridays know that I cut out around 7 pm PST to “teach” – this is what I teach about:

How to create a spiritual life that works for you, and that you will actually put into practice in your physical/chemical existence.

I would say that I’ve tended toward the Seeker end of the spiritual spectrum ever since I was a youngster – I was raised with strict Lutheran doctrine, but my critical thinking skills kicked in early, and at the tender age of 6, I was known to plague my pastor with completely logical questions that frustrated him greatly and showed him up as the “baa, baa” type of Christian that he was (and that I was to become all too familiar with over the years).

Once I figured out that my status as a big old lesbo consigned me to eternal hellfire in the eyes of my Religion-Of-Origin (ROO, rhymes with FOO -- family-of-origin), I did a fuck of a lot of seeking. I studied archaeology and anthropology and sociology and history, I learned Latin and Hebrew to understand more about what the hell had happened with the Bible and Christianity. I know the Tarot inside and out. I’ve plumbed books on quantum physics, gematria, genetics, astrology, astronomy, philosophy, esoteric and practical geometry, Daoism, Buddhism, Sufism, Muslism, Bahaism, Shamanism, and Christianism (if I left anyone’s theology out, just ask – I’ve probably read about or practiced it at one time). I’ve sat to yoga, chanted mantras, attended sweats, cast the circle, jumped the fire, sung to the water drum, and studied with teachers from many, many disciplines and perspectives.

You might say that I was seeking my own personal “Theory of Everything” long before that phrase entered the common lexicon.

In many of the traditions, religions, and disciplines that I’ve directly practiced, my major complaint was that a lot of people who say that they are seeking spirituality are really just trying to get a whole bunch of their life, thought, and experience into the “DONE” box.

Let me explain what I mean by that. The “DONE” box is the box where you put things that are troubling and paradoxical so that you don’t have to think about them any more. Big F Fundamentalist Christianity is particularly useful is you want to fill up your “DONE” box – it tells you precisely what to think about certain troubling things, like the fact that your child is gay and you are not gay and this troubles you, because you’ve been given all sorts of different ideas and opinions about why people are gay, and you’re not sure whether it is something you did or didn’t do, and what the fuck do you do now with this kid who you thought you knew and what will everyone in the congregation think and oh fuck, oh fuck, oh fuck! -- in situations like this, BigFundieC [tm] tells you precisely what to do:

I don’t want to get my life into the DONE box. I want to keep questioning.

I do keep questioning, and actually, I’ve come to some realizations that, to me, look like they might be pretty solid answers. Answers that inevitably lead to more questions (the best kind).

My answers come from disparate sources, some of which might be called “scientific”, some of which might be called “philosophical” or “metaphysical”, and some of which might be called “anecdotal”. For me, the key to finding a real answer is when the scientific (and I’m not talking diet studies funded by the makers of Dexatrim), the philosophical, the metaphysical, and the anecdotal all seem to align.

Example: The beautiful portly body that is now typing this post began as a single cell. (The beautiful body that you are now sitting in, either reading or listening to this post also began as a single cell.) That single cell very quickly either “underwent” or “practiced” mitosis (depending on your views about spiritual causality), and differentiated itself into anywhere from 10 – 100 trillion cells (depending on your sources for human cell counts), most of which specialized to become various parts of my current physical form, some of which (stem cells) still remain in an undifferentiated state to “fill in the blanks” in case of emergencies such as tissue damage, etc..

Somehow, these cells, all originally deriving from a single cell that formed more than 51 years ago (with contributions from mom and dad – thanks folks!) – and some say that the current cells in my body have all been regenerated within the last seven years or less – somehow all these cells are, right now, conspiring to obey my command to type: “Yippee!”

And I don’t think of that as a huge, big miracle (unless I’m having a particularly conscious day). I take it entirely for granted. Even though 10 trillion cells (conservatively) are participating to keep me upright in the chair, process the beer I just drank, and parse the complexities of the English language -- meaning, syntax, grammar – not to mention the astounding act of typing approximately 90 words per minute. While slightly drunk.

How is that possible?

Here’s where the scientific, philosophical, metaphysical and anecdotal align for me on this one: For some strange reason, these variable parts have decided to cooperate to be ME. Scientific evidence points me to an understanding that my cells will pass on my DNA signature to the cells that replace them, or which derive from their mitotic activity. Philosophical evidence points me to an understanding that my concept of myself as a cohesive “I” will also tend to attempt to replicate and imprint itself, attempting to pass the “genome” of my particular personality on, even in my writing here. Metaphysical evidence points me to the an understanding that, while I am an individualized cell in a larger body (“I” am a part of the human species, “I” am a part of the planet Earth, “I” am a part of this solar system, galaxy, universe, and who-knows-what-beyond-that, etc.), I participate with these larger organizing structure according to the rules of those structures, just as my cells participate with me and my “rules”. (I’m glad to take particular questions about this if you want to ask, but I’ll gravely oversimplify by giving the example that “I” and all my participating cells are subject to Earth’s gravitational field and that laws of aerodynamics while within Earth’s gravitational field). My own anecdotal evidence points me to the understanding that I can observe how I am affected by these various levels of what I call “Enfolding Organizations” all the time.

So, when I look at the dizzying possibilities of interactions with all these levels, I find myself searching for a common thread, and I find this:

My physical body arose out of a single thing and became a complex thing, although certain tiny parts of myself are always standing by in a undifferentiated state that is less complex, waiting to become more complex, if necessary. I am also part of several levels of more complex structure, each of which quite possibly may have risen from a single thing. It’s possible that I’m just a stem cell in those structures, or that I’ve already differentiated into a specialized bit.

Two areas of what some call “empirical research” or “real science” have been very, very helpful to me in my seeking: Quantum Physics, and Oncology.

Of all the “scientists” I have known, read, and interacted with, theoretical Quantum Physicists and practicing Oncologists have been the most willing to admit: “We don’t know how that works, but we see that it does work, and we are interested in asking more questions about it and finding out.”

I’ll probably write more in the future about the various connective tissues that I see between these two types of scientists, but for now, I want to write about what in the fuck any of this has to do with my usual Portly Dyke blog-spew.

So here’s my temporary wrap-up to this portion of my spirituality revelation:

To me, when I hear someone say something like: “I’m an atheist because I only believe what can be physically explained using the existing data,” I don’t see this as much (if any) different from someone saying “I believe that homosexuality is an aberration because most of the people I know are heterosexual.”

That said, I’m perfectly willing to allow other people to have whatever opinions they want to have, as long as they don’t insist that I have them too, and attempt to legislate so that I have to live according to their opinions.

In 51 years, I’ve seen too much that I cannot explain using the existing data – not stuff I’ve read about in newspapers – stuff that I’ve experienced directly.

In 1676, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, the “father of microbiology” had a very “strained” relationship with the Royal Society (the main recognized “scientific” society at that time – think present-day National Academy of Science, or CDC, etc.), because he had reported his first observations of single-celled organisms under the microscope. Even though he’d already been an accepted member of this august assembly, it was only after the Society sent a vicar, some judges, and some doctors to verify his claims was he finally vindicated for his “radical” proposals in 1680.

Think about that. This man spent four years of his life trying to convince the scientific powers-that-be (not even the general populace) that something existed beyond the currently-accepted world-view – something that we now take for granted as “scientific fact” – microbes exist, and they affect our physical bodies. Without his observations, and his insistence that he had observed what he observed, Louis Pasteur might never have been.

If I took a four-year tissue-slice of American history – let’s say from the years 2003 to 2007, and attempted to make an analysis of “what is so” about the USA, don’t you think that I’d get a very different analysis than if I took a slice from the years 1969 to 1973, or 1992 to 1996?

If I took a four-year tissue-slice of scientific observation from 1676 to 1680 as opposed to 2003 to 2007 – same thing.

So, my spiritual stance arises, not from some biblical training about what is “right” and “wrong” – not from the currently-accepted view of what is “real” and “not real”, but from an amalgam of: First – what I have directly and personally observed and experienced, Second – what others (scientists included) have observed and how their unbiased reporting of what they have observed meshes with what I have observed, and Third – how this might align with the body of information about previous observations.

I’ll probably keep blogging about this from time to time, and include a few more details about what exactly I believe and don’t believe, but that is a huge fucking mouthful as it is, so I’ll stop now.

Any questions?

(ps -- this series is especially for Nik.E.Poo and Burning Prairie ;), who asked for it. )

Posted byPortlyDyke at 11:45 PM 7 comments  

Labels: Religion, Spirituality