About the Democratic debate last night that I didn’t watch…
…and the one tonight that I won’t watch—
There are many reasons I don’t watch them.
The first you may already know if you’re a regular reader here: I hate political campaign debates. I hate them because I generally would prefer to read something rather than listen, if the “something” is serious-seeming talk that’s mostly empty blather. That’s what nearly all political debates between or among candidates seem like to me, and I’m including both parties.
Jargon and empty words at best, stupidity and lies at worst. That’s the usual, and the exceptions are somewhat rare.
Oh, and then there are the sound bites. I don’t make decisions based on sound bites, but I know other people do.
I know that debates reveal character, at least to a certain extent. Sometimes it’s a gesture—Bush senior looking at his watch, for example, widely interpreted as being uncaring and unconcerned as compared to Bill Clinton’s feeling your pain. But I don’t put so much into a single gesture, and I don’t assume I read minds.
That said, it’s impossible not to have a gut feeling about a candidate when I do watch a debate. Is he or she strong or weak? Logical or not? Up on the facts or ignorant? Calm or agitated? Combative or meek? And much more that probably occurs at a level below our conscious awareness. However, these impressions can be misleading because a candidates’ debate is an artificial format that does not resemble all that much in the real world.
I especially hate political debates featuring either party when there are a large number of contestants. That means that less and less of substance is said, and the format favors the sound bite more and more.
But I have special trouble with the Democratic debates this year. That’s because I almost literally cannot bear to listen to these particular candidates, as compared with the Democrats I remember from my youth and relative youth. This crew is so extreme they scare me—all of them except one who seems to have no chance at all (that means you, John Delaney). And even he scares me, because he’s part of the Party and the party’s agenda has become destructive.
As for Marianne Williamson, who seem people seem to find comic relief and/or inspirational—she just may scare me most of all. Her fuzzy New-Age-y approach connects with the rampant fuzzy New Age-y approach of no small number of voters, and she’s got a fair amount of charisma. Right now her stock is rising, but I don’t know if it’s just a temporary fun-and-games phenomenon. I think, though, it’s emblematic of how arid the field is, and how desperate Democrats are for someone they can feel good about.
So has Williamson offered any real, concrete alternative to the usual tax-and-spend, “Hey, free stuff, kids!” party line of the Democrats.
Ryan and Delaney are both sane – grounded in economic and social reality.
In the Democratic Party of the 20th century, they’d be respected. Not so in the hydrophobic 21st century.
Somebody online pointed out that Williamson represents something real in American life that gets totally ignored in our public discourse because urban elites don’t want to acknowledge how many of them believe in it.
Mike
Watching Looney Toones cartoons is more educational than watching the “demokrat” (i.e., totalitarian, hate-America-first communists) debates.
If in 1932 Hitler and his bunch were permanently dealt with, or if in 1917 or so Lenin and his bunch were permanently dealt with, of if Hugo Chavez and his bunch were permanently dealt with the world would have greatly benefited.
Imagine for a moment one of these crazy demokrat communist radicals becomes president along with a demokrat Congress; you can kiss our Constitutional Republic goodbye.
It’s OK to be a radical kook as long as they do not have power or authority (think Hitler as a destitute street artist in Vienna; Lenin as a refugee living in Zurich, etc.). It’s another thing to have these totally crazy dangerous people in power.
History shows that when certain folks attain sufficient popularity that can propel them into the leadership of a nation, that nation would have been better off eliminating – permanently – that individual and his/her 10 to 20 members of their inner circle.
History also shows how the totally impossible becomes possible, to the total astonishment of all the experts.
You may think my comments are crazy, but imagine Russia in 1910 (arguably a basket case) or Germany in 1910 (one of the most advanced nations on earth) and look forward 35 years. NO ONE could have predicted what ultimately transpired.
And it was TWO people, basically TWO people – Hitler and Lenin – that changed the course of history. Two unknowns, two losers, two individuals of ZERO accomplishments that rose to the top and murdered millions.
It is truly frightening that today’s demokrat party is being led by an American version of a Hitler or Lenin of Stalin.
These multi-candidate debates are all sound and fury signifying not much.
If I could change the rules of campaigns, I would have all the candidates write up their solutions to the problems facing voters as they see them. The newspapers would be required to print these platforms. And once those platforms were in the public discourse, they would not be allowed to change or modify them. They could do interviews on TV defending their platforms, but they would not be able to change their original written platforms. IMO, this would provide more depth and meaning to campaigns than these debates where candidates bob and weave, change positions, and look for focus group tested slogans that work. It would force candidates to really think about what they are promising to do if elected. It would also allow them to go into depth about their ideas when defending them in TV interviews. The five minute sound bites in multi-candidate debates are shallow and don’t provide any depth.
Won’t happen. We are a culture that likes spectacles that provide emotional content with little/no factual content. Rock concerts, professional sports, WWE, political debates, internet games, etc. are the norm.
I certainly could be wrong but in my perception, none of those candidates measure up to a Hitler or Lenin or Stalin. Not nearly enough focused will. Perhaps not even AOC’s Chief-of-Staff, Saikat Chakrabarti is in those monsters league.
Who may be in the 20th’s evil league?
“It’s been determined that the mastermind behind Chakrabarti is Zack Exley, a Saul Alinksy-ite, Radical Leftist who’s been a political operative for some time, working on campaigns for John Kerry, the UK’s Labour Party, Bernie Sanders, as the Chief Revenue Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation and an associate of George Soros’ Open Borders Foundation.”
And, of course George Soros has the requisite sociopathic ruthlessness.
I love it when candidates start talking about how this or that “program” or “plan” of theirs will have this or that miraculous result; say they, “it’s gonna take care of the problem.” Lets see the details.
Anyone can dream up a “plan,” but the question is, is it a plan based on reality, and will it work?
Well, I have a plan that I’m going to be six foot five tomorrow and 25 again, and my plans have as much likelyhood of coming true as any of the plans I heard touted last night.
Then, there is the matter of “statistics.”
I heard a lot of numbers, a lot of statistics tossed around last night–x number of people living on the streets, x number of people without health care, this program will have x effect in terms of dollars, that program will have y effect in terms of dollars–revenue, deficits, GDP and jobs growth, increases in manufacturing output, new plants, estimated costs to individuals and families, etc. etc.
But are any of these numbers, any of these estimates and statistics actually accurate and true?
My practical experience tells me that these “statistics” were chosen–regardless of the validity of the methods which were used to arrive at them, regardless of how likely it is that they are accurate–were searched for and, among probably many sets of statistics that showed various outcomes, were specifically chosen, and used because they made the intended points or, perhaps,they were just made up out of thin air, they’re “guesstimates” at best, or were the fondest hope of some advocacy group that has fudged the figures to get the result they want.
I am reminded of statistics that appeared, some decades ago, in a presentation by some advocacy group that seemed to prove their point.
However, on closer inspection of their work, they had arrived at their agreeable budget statistics by deliberately not counting the large number of troops we had stationed in Germany and I believe, as well, by not counting the in kind or in cash payments given to the U.S. by the German government as compensation for the U.S. as a NATO member having to station U.S. troops in their country .
That kind of “statistics.”
I’m with you Neo, I don’t watch these things, never have, they are political theater, not issue or policy debates. I don’t watch the SOTU either, for the same reason.
Red Sox are playing tonight, and I’ve started watching the new series, The Boys. Much better use of my time.
Once upon a time I read Marianne Williamson because she was “A Course in Miracles” teacher and I was in a “Course” group. I took her and the Course seriously. (I still find the Course interesting.)
However, after my politics changed and the Iraq War began, I found my Course group, like my Episcopal church group, turned rabidly anti-Bush and anti-Iraq War. Political remarks became a regular feature of both groups, which I didn’t appreciate.
Nor did I understand the spiritual basis for their anger and closed-mindedness, especially in the case of the Course, which, as I understand it, is about realizing the reality of God’s Love and the ultimate non-reality of the world. One works the Course by learning one cannot be hurt by the world, that it’s all a journey back to God and Love. Hence the title of Williamson’s first book, “A Return to Love.”
For instance, Lesson 23:
I can escape from the world I see by giving up attack thoughts.
1. The idea for today contains the only way out of fear that will ever succeed. Nothing else will work; everything else is meaningless. But this way cannot fail. Every thought you have makes up some segment of the world you see. It is with your thoughts, then, that we must work, if your perception of the world is to be changed.
2. If the cause of the world you see is attack thoughts, you must learn that it is these thoughts which you do not want. There is no point in lamenting the world. There is no point in trying to change the world. It is incapable of change because it is merely an effect. But there is indeed a point in changing your thoughts about the world. Here you are changing the cause. The effect will change automatically.
3. The world you see is a vengeful world, and everything in it is a symbol of vengeance. Each of your perceptions of “external reality” is a pictorial representation of your own attack thoughts. One can well ask if this can be called seeing. Is not fantasy a better word for such a process, and hallucination a more appropriate term for the result?
4. You see the world that you have made, but you do not see yourself as the image maker…..
–https://acim.org/workbook/lesson-23/
and the party’s agenda has become destructive.
and the party’s agenda has always been destructive
When was it not? before or after the civil war?
Being the oldest party in the US, they can have secrets, documents and libraries unto themselves that go back to the founding that have never been seen or known.
Andrew Jackson, the fun guy that took the Indians land and gave it away for votes and party power.
“It will be my sincere and constant desire to observe toward the Indian tribes within our limits a just and liberal policy, and to give that humane and considerate attention to their rights and their wants which is consistent with the habits of our Government and the feelings of our people.” — Andrew Jackson
“Toward the aborigines of the country no one can indulge a more friendly feeling than myself, or would go further in attempting to reclaim them from their wandering habits and make them a happy, prosperous people.” — Andrew Jackson
“Anyone can dream up a “plan,” but the question is, is it a plan based on reality, and will it work?”
Of course their ‘plans’ won’t work and some of them undoubtedly know that. But that is irrelevant. They’re not appealing to such as we, they’re claiming to be true… what those inclined to vote for them want to be true. Ala Bill de Blasio, “There’s plenty of money in this country, it’s just in the wrong hands…”
As for reality, everyone on the left is to one degree or another, divorced from reality and the people upon that stage perfectly reflect that circumstance.
I certainly could be wrong but in my perception, none of those candidates measure up to a Hitler or Lenin or Stalin.
your not wrong…
This time its a farce, and its to make what is important, easier to obtain
Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, were nobodies, losers, unknowns, insignificant folks.
Until they weren’t.
NOBODY took them seriously.
It was only after they assumed positions of power – when it was too late – that people took them and their lunatic ravings and lunatic policies seriously.
That is the point I am trying (albeit unsuccessfully) to make.
“One works the Course by learning one cannot be hurt by the world” huxley
I too very briefly flirted with the Course. It’s message of love I have no quarrel with but it’s assertion that we “cannot be hurt by the world” is sheer lunacy.
Ask the families of the 9/11 victims. Ask the survivors, relatives and friends of those lost in the California fires if the world has hurt them. Look upon Vesuvius’ preserved bodies with their frozen rictus of pain and tell us the world cannot hurt us.
Ask the girls that Boco Haram has violated. Ask the truly <a href="https://face2faceafrica.com/article/slavery-africa-today enslaved enduring in Africa…
In the world, both nature’s calamities and man’s inhumanity to man have through the ages hurt billions.
That Williamson doesn’t acknowledge it, speaks volumes about her. Take your pick; delusional or just another con-woman.
Geoffrey Britain: If the ultimate reality is God’s Love and this world is a dream in comparison (however ferociously and painfully real it seems), then we are not truly hurt by the world any more than we are hurt by a bad dream.
This is not an unusual way to see things in Christianity or Hinduism. Williamson is hardly alone. Nor is she necessarily delusional or a con-woman unless you are a strict materialist and those are the only possibilities you allow.
JohnTyler,
If all it takes is power to do what Hitler, Lenin and Stalin did then why have so relatively few fanatics seized power?
The man, the moment and the circumstances must align.
“There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. William Shakespeare
That perception applies as well to monsters as it does to heroes.
Marianne Williamson is an imp of Satan.
I would love to see her meeting with Putin, Xi, Kim, and Maduro. A president has a real job to do.
That this world is but a dream is just another delusion spun by another con artist. What was that recent post about? Some guy from Cambridge and two grifters ….
huxley,
I do not advise that you approach a veteran who has lost an arm or leg and then tell them that it only ‘seems’ that way…
I’m all for God’s ‘ultimate spiritual reality’ but anyone who claims a deeper understanding of reality had better offer one that doesn’t deny God’s physical reality. And, when the Course and Williamson claim that the world cannot hurt you, they’re blowing smoke up your a**.
That Course in Miracles sounds like warmed-over Gnosticism to me.
Neo said about Marrianne Williamson:
“Right now her stock is rising, but I don’t know if it’s just a temporary fun-and-games phenomenon.”
I remember when people were saying that about Trump.
huxley:
It is one thing to say “this world is a dream compared to the eternal, which may be revealed to us after we die.”
Or, “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”
Or even, “Our thoughts and perceptions influence and help shape our reality.”
But that’s a far cry from Williamson’s writing. A far far cry.
For example [emphasis mine]:
“The idea for today contains the only way out of fear that will ever succeed. Nothing else will work; everything else is meaningless. But this way cannot fail.”
Right there we have a whole bunch of red flags. Her recommendations are the ONLY way? They CANNOT fail? Who on earth is she? The conduit of all wisdom? The oracle? She may be saying she’s just channeling the wisdom of the ages, but that doesn’t sound to me like the way a wise person talks (unless perhaps it is the leader/founder of a world religion, which I believe Williamson aspires to be).
More:
“Every thought you have makes up some segment of the world you see. It is with your thoughts, then, that we must work, if your perception of the world is to be changed.”
That’s just a basic principle of cognitive psychology; nothing unusual there.
More:
“There is no point in lamenting the world. There is no point in trying to change the world.”
Hmmm—then why is Williamson writing all these guru-type books? Or running for president? And advocating for the policies she would implement as president? Isn’t that trying to change the world?
More:
“It is incapable of change because it is merely an effect. But there is indeed a point in changing your thoughts about the world. Here you are changing the cause. The effect will change automatically.”
I’m afraid that is a delusion. Or at least an extreme overstatement of the basic idea that one’s perceptions can often influence one’s experience, something with which almost no one would quarrel and is hardly a revolutionary thought. Again, cognitive psychology 101.
More:
“The world you see is a vengeful world, and everything in it is a symbol of vengeance.”
What? I’m hardly the most optimistic and upbeat person in the world, but thank goodness everything I see is not a symbol of vengeance. Is she addressing a convention of paranoid schizophrenics, or what?
More:
“Each of your perceptions of ‘external reality’ is a pictorial representation of your own attack thoughts. One can well ask if this can be called seeing. Is not fantasy a better word for such a process, and hallucination a more appropriate term for the result?”
Tell that to the person who is being attacked by a knife-wielding would-be murderer. That’s not an “attack thought” of yours, it’s an attack. And you better not consider it a hallucination, or you’ll be dead. Yes folks, there is an external reality, and we have bodies that can be very much affected by it whatever our thoughts. Now, it helps to be prepared and to not be overwhelmed by fear. But you darn well better take note of external reality, which is not merely a slideshow with you operating the projector.
Roy Nathanson:
Exactly. I didn’t know at the beginning which it was for him, and I don’t know for her.
I took him seriously.
And I take her seriously.
Perhaps are fed up and looking for something different. She’s very very different.
I think she will fade. But I’m not betting any money on it.
neo: That quote was from the Course, not Williamson. Sorry for the confusion.
The Course does not make sense within a rational materialist context. It’s a sequence of 365 lessons designed to deconstruct one’s ordinary way of viewing the world and to open oneself to a greater reality that does indeed seem crazy — like most mysticism.
The best way I can explain it is the dream analogy but you and GB discarded that with barely a thought.
Orthodox Christians believe the reality is God in heaven, that consecrated bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ, that a carpenter resurrected from the dead 2000 years ago, was somehow the Son of God and his followers are in telepathic communion with Him today.
Would you like me to justify those assertions as well? If there were no Christianity and one went to a psychiatrist with those beliefs, one would likely be diagnosed as delusional.
My problem with Williamson is I don’t see how she gets from the Course to “dark psychic forces.” Lesson 23 concludes:
In the practice periods, be sure to include both your thoughts of attacking and of being attacked. Their effects are exactly the same because they are exactly the same. You do not recognize this as yet, and you are asked at this time only to treat them as the same in today’s practice periods. We are still at the stage of identifying the cause of the world you see. When you finally learn that thoughts of attack and of being attacked are not different, you will be ready to let the cause go.
The Course was channeled by Helen Schucman, a medical psychologist who taught at Columbia. She and a colleague were troubled by tensions at work. One night she started hearing a voice, so she transcribed it and showed it to her colleague, Bill Thetford. He encouraged her to continue the process. Which she did, until she had three volumes of rather intricate material, which she claimed had been entirely dictated to her by Jesus.
Now, I don’t know what to make of that and I’m not here to convince anyone of anything. I found the Course too strange and too divorced from my ordinary functioning that I never found much use for it beyond my interest in odd corners of the universe.
In any event the Course is where Williamson comes from. It became the center of her life and thousands of people were inspired by her as a teacher.
Make of it what you will.
huxley:
Thanks for clarifying, because I thought that was Williamson you were quoting. But it seems to be a belief system she ascribes to.
I didn’t discard the dream idea; I think it’s implicit in my second quote at the beginning (the one from the New Testament, about through a glass darkly).
I’m certainly familiar with the basic idea that there’s a reality beyond our reality, and that our life is something of a dream. I see that as a metaphor for the idea that what we see is not the whole of reality or the last word on reality, not that we can ignore reality and that reality is completely and utterly shaped by our mind. I am, for example, familiar with the quote from this guy and others who’ve said much the same as he.
But I take issue with the things I mentioned in my previous comment to you. And of course we all (or most of us) use logic to evaluate things that are stated in words, to accept or reject them. The style of that entire quote from the Course doesn’t resonate with me. These people (Williamson et al) have followers, but their belief system is not a major world religion and there’s no particular reason for me to accept it and what I see as its illogic. That quote explicitly talks about a person’s thoughts—not just some sort of mystical faith. It uses argument and seeming logic to try to convince us of its truth. So it actually invites a logic-based response.
And yes, I do find a great many religious beliefs of the major religions to be illogical. But some religions seem more logical than others to me, and those are the ones that tend to resonate more with me. However, I don’t look down on others who have different religious beliefs and operate on a different basis. But when a person like Williamson or Shucman comes out of the blue and writes the things you quoted there, which seem to be an attempt to present a logical argument not just for their truth but these things being the only way, I must use logic to say they make no sense to me. The world is filled with would-be gurus, each of whom has his or her little or big following.
huxley,
I can’t speak for neo but I can’t recall her dismissing without consideration any POV. Certainly, I did not, as I’m quite familiar with new age philosophy. I just find the analogy specious.
“The Course does not make sense within a rational materialist context. It’s a sequence of 365 lessons designed to deconstruct one’s ordinary way of viewing the world and to open oneself to a greater reality that does indeed seem crazy — like most mysticism.”
Presumably, Williamson has followed the 365 lessons and successfully ‘deconstructed’ her previous ordinary way of viewing the world and has opened herself to a greater reality… in which case I present her assertions as proof positive of the Course’s inherent flaws.
Any “Course in Miracles” that denies experiential reality has to be able to prove its veracity.
Call me a “doubting Thomas” but some miracles must be seen to be believed. So, let’s see Williamson walk by herself through Baltimore’s roughest streets @ 2 in the morning for 7 nights in a row as proof that attacks can only manifest if we contain the inward impetus for them. Surely, as Jesus’ current messenger of love, in a modern day miracle, she will walk unmolested, night after night.
neo: Orthodox Christians have been making “the only way” claims since the beginning. Many Christian claims seem to invite logic-based responses as well.
Modern Christians have been revising “the only way” business in various ways which I don’t find all that convincing within the Christian belief system, but it makes for a more tolerant Christianity.
I don’t see any reason to treat the Course different from Christianity except of course it’s more politic to do so.
Carl Sagan wrote a materialist scientist rant, “The Demon-Haunted World,” in which he took on all sorts of New Age stuff, as though civilization was in danger any time someone read a horoscope, but he was careful not to take on Christianity with the same verve. Coward!
This evening, my dread Multivariable Calculus course complete, I returned to zazen at the ABQ Zen Center. We did two rounds of zazen, drank a cup of tea, then chanted Hakuin’s famous “Song of Zazen.” Here’s one verse:
Boundless and free is the sky of Samádhi!
Bright the full moon of wisdom!
Truly, is anything missing now?
Nirvana is right here, before our eyes,
This very place is the Lotus Land,
This very body, the Buddha.
This is Nirvana? This adobe building with loud rock radio playing next door in the background? This very body (mine?) the Buddha? How insane!
As I washed my tea cup, the head monk greeted me, “Good morning.” That’s how he treats me. If it’s morning, he says, “Good evening.” If it’s evening, he says, “Good morning.” Ah well, he’s one of those crazy Rinzai teachers. I’m debating whether to respond, “Merry Christmas.”
That’s SOP with a lot of mystics. They are not making rational arguments to convince one of a logical conclusion. It’s a process which may or may not lead one to greater awareness.
huxley:
I’m well aware that many religions, including Christianity, claim to be the only way. And attempt to persuade through logic as well.
But I am not a believer in those religions. So I don’t see your point.
I wasn’t writing about why I’m not a believer in those religions. I’m writing about why those quotes you gave don’t demonstrate logic and why I am not drawn to them.
I’m not “treating” the course—or Christianity, for that matter—in any particular way. In this comment thread I have been reacting to the quotes you offered. They are new to me. I am far more familiar with Christianity, but I’m not writing about Christianity at the moment. I certainly didn’t say that the Course was the only religious approach in the world that seems illogical to me, to me, or that it’s the only one claiming to be the only way!
In addition, unless I’m mistaken, Christianity doesn’t just rest on its logical arguments—there is a huge mystical faith-based part, as well, and the two work together do they not? I’m assuming there’s more to the Course than these arguments here as well, but I am unimpressed by the arguments, which are all I know about it at the moment.
huxley:
See this, and in particular the Updike quote that is the intro.
Each to his own guru. If one is following any spiritual or religious path, one must choose one that resonates. The Zen teacher who says “Good evening” in the morning and vice versa, is (apparently) trying to shake up the usual order of things and jolt his students into a different way of seeing the world. I’ve read quite a bit about that sort of thing, starting in the 1960s.
But there are also a ton of quacks and con artists, as well as people who claim to have powers and insights they do not have. We all use whatever tools are at our disposal to evaluate which person to listen to and which to shrug off. We may all make different decisions about which is which.
I just find the analogy specious.
Geoffrey Britain: It works for me. I find your “Oh, what about 9-11 and Boko Haram” boo-hoo as though such things never occurred to me less than specious.
Surely, as Jesus’ current messenger of love, in a modern day miracle, she will walk unmolested, night after night.
You don’t seem to recall how Jesus died.
Miracles may or may not happen, but orthodox Christians have never made the mistake of assuming their faith made them immune to suffering and violence.
I’m not asking you to believe the Course or Williamson. But if one is interested in understanding Williamson beyond New Age caricatures, one might be interested in knowing her core motivation.
huxley:
I’m not expert on Jesus, but to the best of my knowledge he never said anything like the Course’s: “Each of your perceptions of ‘external reality’ is a pictorial representation of your own attack thoughts. One can well ask if this can be called seeing. Is not fantasy a better word for such a process, and hallucination a more appropriate term for the result?”
I don’t believe that Jesus ever denied external reality. It is my impression that when he spoke of rewards they were in the world to come. It seems as though the Course is saying something rather different, at least from those particular quotes. It seems the Course is saying that external reality either doesn’t exist, or can be controlled and changed in this lifetime.
Abandon Judeo-Christianity and you are going to get more Williamsons. Or Earth worshipping New Green Deals even if the leaders pushing it don’t really believe it. One of the guys I volunteer with at the church is spending much of his summer in Maine, working with a start up church. In his words, those people are into Buddhism up there. In his words, the church is “trying to re-seed” Maine with the Gospel. Meanwhile the Chinese are embracing Christianity by the millions. Except the Chicoms don’t like that. They want atheist masses. Christianity is even growing in Iran. The underground church is apparently quiet huge. The “man in white” appearances are apparently in decline now, at least according to Joel Rosenberg the last time he spoke at our church. Which Rosenberg took as a sign that the special grace of an Man in White appearance was no longer needed. Which many have observed as a pattern that once Christianity is established or reestablished in an area the more obvious miracles seem to occur less frequently to unbelievers. But the believers faith continues to allow them to see the hand of God at work in ways those without faith may not recognize. Seen it many times myself. Specific things I have prayed about and just in the knick of time it comes thru.
“Dark Mystical Forces” is so much more sophisticated, significant, insightful, and powerful than “racist.” or “orangemanbad.” Right. /sarc
She is a grifter. One of many.
IMHO.
Public Panel debates?
Rather read than listen to the crap “for the little people” constrained by debate rules?
I agree. Here’s what you do….
Turn off the sound.
Read the “tells” of the participants, including the “sponsors” leading with the
“topics”. What they’re actually saying, and what the implied topic-at-hand actually is, is unimportant.
IF you know how to read that sort of stuff, and can discriminate between the classic, textbook, practiced, “staged” body language, and the “unrealized” involuntary.
Which does NOT provide immunity for the actual transcript in it’s OWN, separate, chicanery of course.
Good catch, Ann. Warmed over Gnosticism, indeed.
My son and I were talking recently about the persistence of the ‘Gnostic’ world view. I think it is endemic to human nature and seems to reappear in differing forms throughout history – not just as a 1st/2nd century Christian heresy. Currently gnostic thought seems to have taken hold in leftism generally and in the environmental movement particularly.
‘The material world is corrupt and evil.’
‘Abandoning the material world and pursuing the ‘special knowledge’ is the path to salvation.’
This goes a long way toward explaining the powerful attraction of leftist thought and worship of the environment and why they are, essentially, secular religion.
It is heresy to Christians because there is no ‘special knowledge’ or way to ‘earn’ salvation. Cf. The Reformation.
As a wise woman once said; ‘I’m just trying to help the best I can. I’m not trying to save the world. Somebody already did.’
Williamson sounded like a leader of an obscure wacky cult, not as a politician. Her charisma is of a specific kind often observed among victims of a demonic possession aka sluggish schizophrenia. Something reminded Jim Jones. Suitable for a LSD party, not for a political party.
huxley,
“I find your “Oh, what about 9-11 and Boko Haram” boo-hoo as though such things never occurred to me less than specious.”
I offered examples of how the world does hurt people. They are prima facie evidence that directly contradicts the Course’s assertion that “your perceptions of ‘external reality’ is a pictorial representation of your own attack thoughts” Which makes those examples anything but specious.
I never even implied that those examples had never occurred to you. Though your statement that, “we are not truly hurt by the world any more than we are hurt by a bad dream.” indicates otherwise. Bad dreams cannot withstand the light of day but a missing arm easily weathers the light.
“Surely, as Jesus’ current messenger of love, in a modern day miracle, she will walk unmolested, night after night.”
“You don’t seem to recall how Jesus died.”
Gee that never occurred to me… oh wait, first Jesus performed many miracles before multitudes of witnesses, which were convincing validation of his not being a conman guru. After receiving the “Holy Ghost”, his apostles also reportedly performed miracles, which validated their faith in Jesus. Were ALL the witnesses delusional?
“Miracles may or may not happen, but orthodox Christians have never made the mistake of assuming their faith made them immune to suffering and violence.”
Williamson, to validate her status as Jesus current avatar, must first prove her immunity before sacrificing herself. Nearly every prophet & apostle followed that pattern.
Unlike Jesus, she comes not to fulfill the law but to dismiss it.
“I’m not asking you to believe the Course or Williamson. But if one is interested in understanding Williamson beyond New Age caricatures, one might be interested in knowing her core motivation.”
I never suggested that you were proselytizing. As for her core motivation, I suspect I understand that better than she does herself, as she’s a perfect example of willful blindness.
For if she were not, by now she’d have offered evidence of the validity of her greater reality, rather than regurgitating platitudes that must be accepted solely on faith.
James 2:26 comes to mind; “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
Oh, this sweet sound of “spirituality”! In the arid desert of materialism its siren song is irresistible. What most people do not suspect is that the images they dream about its source are almost all mirages, luring them into deadly traps. This realm of spirituality is neither a merry playground for never-matured adolescents, nor paradise with all fruit edible, even the forbidden one. Actually, it is a mine field and a graveyard of unlucky explorers, with very few relatively safe passages with skeletons of those who made a misstep aside marking them on both sides of the path. And most of these passages are actually dead-end alleys, leading to nowhere. One can have some consolation that he was able to go so far into this hostile terrain without going insane or dead, but this is a weak consolation prize compared to what one was looking for at the beginning of his spiritual journey. It took generations of daredevils to probe it for every small distance forward, and each generation paid a terrible price for such advance. That is why I consider all self-proclaimed spiritual guru charlatans or crazies, probably both.