yea i hear you on all of this jack, and area of struggle for me over the years as well!

it makes the rare connections all the more valuable.....

yup (without sounding conceited, and more in the service of illustrating the level of disconnect from much of the pop spiritual zeitgeist) i often wish i could take my own class or retreat or receive bodywork from myself... in a way i have ended up creating the kind of community and experiential spaces that i crave. i find i am rarely able to be the receiver of the kind of space i strive to hold.

a challenge indeed.

well i am glad to hear it! ;)

one can cherry pick the bible to find any number of pleasant or abominable admonitions. it is a primitive text written by superstitious people in a brutal time.

there are so many infinitely better books to read now on just about every subject imaginable, from ethics to spiritual experience, to psychology etc...

the single point i am making is that we should consider more carefully the tendency to

a) try to revise religion as if *all along* it was somehow gesturing toward the liberal values we now find meaningful so as to
b) make it seem as if those values are rooted in some ancient supernatural/mythic authority.

yes i agree about the buddhist revisionists - that was part of what got me thinking along this track - particularly this thread:
http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/2012/05/09/on-t...

i think that often when folks with your temperament try to understand my argument they interpret it as me saying we should somehow go out and insult and convert christians. i think and espouse no such thing...

i do however think it is a good thing to inject into the zeitgeist/conversation a clear eyed critique of religion along with alternative ways of understanding ethics, meaning and integrated spirituality that has moved beyond superstition.

not sure who you think i am making an argument to......

i too would rather "have it that Christians and Muslims, for example, revision themselves as anti-hate and anti-terrorism--even if that is just a growing consensus."

there is nothing i am saying here that contradicts that wish!

i am also not saying deluded christians should become atheists (and please hold the cheap and tired rhetoric of using religious terms to denote atheist figures, ideas or organizations!)

who said i was trying to have richard dawkins gain a christian following?

i am with you on what you are saying here - my point though is that we should be mindful of the tendency to want to define old world religious truths as if they reflect our current liberal values.

they don't.

my point is that it is a privileged revisionism that seeks to have the cake of ancient authority while eating the cookie of claiming that what the bible/koran/gita/sutras really meant amounts to post enlightenment, post modern liberal contemporary values - like say being pro gay rights.

this tap dance has of course the added disadvantage of being incorrect!

should we encourage the religions to become more moderate, inclusive, liberal and compassionate?! fuck yeah!

the thing is though at some point as one takes down the walls between religion, science, psychology, and social evolution one comes face to face with the problem of supernatural belief that is kept protected from doubt by those very walls.

at some point one has to give up supernaturalism and the fetishizing of ancient authority in order to be sane, integrated and have a sustainable spirituality.

its an unpopular thing to say, but i think deep down most educated people know this is true.

does this mean we are to enact some fascist regime that forbids superstition? don't be ridiculous!

but it does mean that we can keep introducing healthy, viable, integrated alternatives as part of the creative process of evolving humanity and spirituality.

this begins (as you gesture toward) with differentiating metaphorical and literal language, and can continue with differentiating the entirely natural spectrum of altered state experiences (from the sublime to the insane) from the supernatural interpretations that we ,especially in our past were prone to making...

great piece.

of course we can cull ideas and take inspiration - everyone is doing this though, and my point is that it is a tricky business trying to assert that REAL christianity is what fits our liberal postmodern values.

plenty of other folks would say that REAL christianity is this guy's message or catholicism or mormonism etc...

i am pointing out the problem with taking a stance that is essentially revisionist and tries to suggest that what jesus/buddha/confucius/doinysos REALLY meant somehow confirms our particular values that are REALLY sourced from somewhere else more relevant, contemporary and informed than the writers of stone age scriptures could hope to be...

i am questioning the idea that this man is NOT a christian because he is spewing hateful homophobia, especially when christian churches (maybe a close second to islam) are major propagators, specifically of homophobic hate.

i am enjoying the section in alstad & kramer's the guru papers on the tension between fundamentalism and revisionism, and how BOTH are still in thrall to notions of ancient supernatural authority.

much appreciated.

kind of you to say malika! - and thanks for the "mirroring!' :)

thanks mr dodge! where can i find your writing online, do you have a website?