PROTON DIPLOMACY

PROTON DIPLOMACY - my current response to those calling for military intervention in Syria
----------
If America is a peaceful nation, then why did we develop the Neutron Bomb - a bomb that kills people, but doesn't destroy buildings - before we developed a bomb that destroys buildings but doesn't kill people?

We need to be a whole lot better at diplomatic solutions and we need to eliminate war as a go-to foreign affairs solution to international conflict.

I propose a new kind of diplomacy for the United States in the new millennium. I call it Proton Diplomacy, for two reasons.
1. It is the opposite of a neutron bomb. If we must take invasive measures in another country, do so with the least likelihood of taking life.
2. It recommends being proactive and preventative.

We need to invoke a diplomacy that has never been invoked in the history of our country before. Imagine a level of intensity and resolve that was manifested at the JFK Bay of Pigs stand-off, only with diplomatic might as our escalation threat, not military intervention.

We need a statesperson who is more willing to be a civil servant than to either accumulate wealth and power or to kowtow to the wealthy warring interests in this nation.

We need to reinvent diplomacy. Those five words are incredibly complex.

There are several things that we need to realign and areas where we need to rethink. Consider just a few.

1. We need to use preventive diplomacy. We need to be allies with as many countries as possible in mutually beneficial relationships.
2. We need to mean what we say diplomatically and stand by it.
3. We need to recognize that traditional diplomacy is not adequate. No nation in the world is upset or chastened when we pull the credentials from their Ambassador and send him/her home. That’s a diplomatic joke that has no meaning for a seriously rogue nation.
4. We need to generate consensus when we use diplomacy and the results of that diplomacy, like sanctions.
5. We need to be serious about sanctions; they need to be like the wrath of God, short of violence. Sanctions need to be swift and serious. If we want sanctions to take the place of war, they had better be capable of making a foe change their minds and actions.
6. Economic sanctions have to be swift and severe, when necessary, and must be decisive. They need to be as humanitarian as possible.
7. Economic sanctions – if we are to be honest – may have to have secondary and tertiary targets. We cannot target one country while continuing to aid or do business with a neighboring country that is funneling resources into the original target country.
8. We need to come up with a way of targeting specific political leaders with non-violent sanctions and actions; FOR EXAMPLE: if there is the possibility of fomenting a bloodless coup, we need to make it crystal clear that we will aid in that effort. Money, resource support to the opposition, garnering support among the nations of the world, sharing of intelligence information and analysis with the opposition. As I said, short of violence, nothing is off the table.
9. Certainly, insofar as we can do so, without serious harm and deleterious effects on the populace, traditional sanctions and embargoes should be utilized, but quickly, surgically and with strength and resolve.

These are just a few, rudimentary ideas. There are many other ways to invoke Proton Diplomacy. This is an area that has never been fully developed or utilized because America has been so unhesitant about invoking military options.

Basically Diplomacy needs to be reinvented. Part of diplomacy may involve non-military aid and presence past a crisis. We need to be prepared to demonstrate a resolve to the nth degree, to a new level and using new methodology and mechanisms that have not yet even been invented (for example, offers to help build or augment a country’s infrastructure, following the successful resolution of the conflict where we’re intervening.

And we need a leader who can commit to that general model of diplomacy. Not sure who that might be on the American political front…

AN EXPLANATION OF INSTITUTIONAL RACISM - AN ANECDOTAL PRIMER

Institutional racism exists when racism is so entrenched and pervasive that the people involved and affected see it as the natural state of affairs.  When institutional racism exists, the person being hurt by racism is unaware of the racism and accepts the situation and the person benefiting from racism is unaware of the racism and accepts the situation.

In modern America, between whites and blacks, we have income disparity, incarceration disparity, hiring and firing disparity, job level disparity, voting accessibility disparity, mortality rate disparity, housing availability disparity, hate crimes and a whole host of pragmatic manifestations of racism.

And there are way too many Americans who are saying that if the blacks are not complaining enough, then racism is solved and ended…

The reality is this: people of privilege, power, wealth and authority NEVER willingly relinquish that privilege, power, wealth and authority.  It’s part of both hard-wired and learned security and esteem needs.

But we should be better than that.  We should be able to rise above both those hard-wired and those learned needs and move closer to the agape concepts of giving without demanding quid pro quo.  We need to accommodate and acquiesce, such that equality can move just a little closer toward becoming a reality.  That means those who are privileged have to recognize that they are privileged and cede some small amount of that privilege.

I am not a saint and certainly not looking to be considered a good example, but an incident that happened to me in fourth grade and my response speaks to our need to step outside the bounds of assumed normal human behaviors in order to begin to achieve some modicum of equity in our culture and society.

It starts in fourth grade with a new teacher.  Since the statute of limitations has passed, I have no reason to hide names.  It was Mr. Ecklund.  Mr. Ecklund was a new teacher of English and was my ‘home room’ teacher.

Mr. Ecklund got called from the room one morning during home room for some reason and – of course – the fourth grade class got rowdy.  There was noise, commotion and everything you’d expect, but this particular morning there was one addition to the mayhem; a paper airplane.

Yes, I threw the paper airplane and yes, it hit a girl in the back of the head, and yes, I found that funny.  But then it’s all fun and games, until someone loses an eye.

Moments later, Mr. Ecklund came back into the room.  Now, I knew the girl who had been attacked by my paper drone.  And I knew that she was prissy and a snitch.  But she hadn’t seen who threw the paper airplane and had no way of pointing me out and getting me in trouble.

What I did not know about the girl who had been hit by the paper airplane was that she had an ax to grind and it did not involve me.  We had a kid in our class named Daniel Kenickie (Yep, just like the name in Grease, we had our own Kenickie).

Well fourth grade first row girl for some reason didn’t like Kenickie.  She actively disliked him and when Mr. Ecklund returned, she took an almost obscene glee in pointing out to Mr. Ecklund that Kenickie had attempted to impale her with a gliding piece of wood pulp parchment…

Due process notwithstanding, Mr. Ecklund – who had probably just found out that his car repair was going to be $500 over the estimate – was in no mood to be trifled with by his new class.  He summarily grabbed the wooden paddle, and summoned Mr. Kenickie to follow him into the hall.

OK.

I was off the hook.  The realities of an unjust system had rewarded me.  I was going to benefit by that very lack of due process and kangaroo court.  I was going to be free of any harm, while the front row girl was smug and satisfied and Kenickie was going to pay the price for something that he hadn’t done, having no idea who the guilty party really was.  I benefited from the brokenness of the system and the institutionalized process.

Whew.

Only, even then in my fourth grade state of education and level of reasoning, I knew that something was not right.  I could sit still, keep quiet, let the whole thing blow over and be none the worse for wear and in a couple days it would be ancient history.  THE WORLD WOULD CONTINUE TO REVOLVE AS IT HAD, AND NOTHING HAD TO CHANGE.  Everybody would accommodate and adapt to their roles and fates.  And I would be in the clear.  I would benefit from the inadvertent structure of the decision making and corporal punishment system in that school.

As they were going through the door toward the hallway where the corporal punishment would be administered, I raised my hand and spoke, without waiting to be ‘recognized.’

“You can’t do that, Mr. Ecklund.”

You would not believe the looks I got from my classmates and from the teacher.

“George, what did you say?”

“I said, ‘You can’t do that, Mr. Ecklund.’”

“Why are you saying that?  Why can’t I do this?  What business is it of yours?  You need to quiet down.  Everybody needs to quiet down and sit still.”

“You can’t paddle Kenickie because he didn’t throw the airplane.”

“But Susie told me that he threw it.”

“Susie’s wrong.  She was facing forward.  She couldn’t see.  She lied.  I know that Kenickie didn’t throw the airplane, because I did.”

Kenickie who had been protesting with all his might, raised a renewed and more vigorous protestation of his innocence.

Mr. Ecklund kind of tossed Kenickie toward his seat.

“You threw the airplane that hit Susie?”

“Yes.”

“Not Danny?”

“Correct.”

“George, why are you saying this?”

Wow, he had me stumped.  My fourth grade values and morality level might have recognized an injustice, but it didn’t prepare me to explain jumping into the line of fire.

“It wasn’t right.  Danny didn’t do it and you were going to punish him.”

Mr. Ecklund wasn’t angry, although I kind of thought he had every right to be.  I’d stopped a natural, normal progression, and thrown a wrench into an otherwise nominally working academic system.  Mr. Ecklund looked at me long enough to make me nervous and I couldn’t tell what he was thinking as he considered me.

“Come with me.”

Alright… no good deed goes unpunished.  Teacher, paddle and I were going to visit the hallway.

Once in the hallway, Mr. Ecklund surprised me by not stopping, but by making a right and heading down the stairs.  I followed, having no idea at this point what to expect.

Mr. Ecklund crossed the central atrium of the old, big school building, headed straight for the Principal’s office.  He pointed with his paddle toward the bench outside the office, then walked in.  I sat.

He was in the office for about 20 minutes, then he came out and said, “The Principal wants to talk to you.”  Then he walked away, returning in the direction of his classroom.

I walked into Mr. McCarroll’s office.  It was large and imposing.  Back then, there was no secretary, no anteroom, no demarcation other than door.  You went from atrium school noises and activity into the sanctum.

Mr. McCarroll was a large, imposing, ex-football player and coach who moved through the academic ranks based primarily on his athletic background.  He was very gentle and very matter-of-fact when he spoke.

“George, sit down.”

I accommodated.  Sitting, I wasn’t getting paddled.

“George, Mr. Ecklund told me what happened.”  I had no idea what had happened, I was still improvising and still had no idea how this would play out.

“Mr. Ecklund said that while he was out of the room you threw a paper airplane.  Is that right?”

I nodded assent.

“And he says that paper airplane hit Susie in the back of the head.  Is that right?”

I was beginning to wish I’d thrown something bigger and more substantial.  I nodded again.

“And he says that she said that Danny Kenickie threw the plane, but then you stopped him from paddling Danny and said that you threw the plane.”

“Yes.”

“Why did you do that?”  Again that question that I was now asking myself.  I obviously had to work on my keeping shut skills.

“I couldn’t let him paddle Kenickie.  He didn’t do anything.  I did.  Mr. Ecklund just made a mistake when he believed Susie, who was sitting in front and didn’t see anything.”

Mr. McCarroll looked calm and patient and soothing.  Why wouldn’t he?  He had a sports metaphor in his back pocket.

“George, let’s say you’re playing football.  (I had, for a brief time in grade school, and was a pretty decent lineman.)  And you inadvertently cause a penalty and the ref doesn’t see who did it, and calls a penalty against an opposing team player.  Now you wouldn’t go to the ref and say, ‘Excuse me, but he didn’t do it, I did it,’ would you?”

That sounded like a trick question and I wasn’t sure where he was going with this, so I used the skill and cunning that fourth grades have used since fourth grade was invented: I stammered.

“Um… um.. er… um… ah… um… um… ah…”
“Right.  You wouldn’t stop the game and try to get the ref to change the penalty from the other side to you, would you?”

More eloquent stammering…

“Well, that same thing is true of life.  Sometimes you just let the system work.  And sometimes the system benefits you and you just accept it and you don’t make a fuss, or try to change it.  You accept that you’ve gotten a break and you take advantage of it.  It’s the way things are, and when the system works to your benefit, you accept it and don’t necessarily try to change that system.”

“Yes, sir.”

“Now, go back to class.  And try to remember what I told you.  Sometimes, that’s just how things work and how they’re supposed to work.”

And that’s how my real life morality play ended.
Susie hated Kenickie.  I could live with that.  Passions run deep in fourth graders.

Mr. Ecklund looked at me differently and we actually became friends for my next two years in his homeroom and beyond, when I went to high school.

Mr. McCarroll was careful to speak to me every time he saw me in the hallways and ask how I was doing.  I became adept at being non-committal without stammering.

But what he said was a lie.  To benefit from a system by letting others be injured, despite the system being old and established is wrong.

When we pay the black person more than the white person for exactly the same job…

When we tolerate the arrest of the black youth when a white youth in an identical circumstance would not be arrested…

When we create skimpy budgets for primarily black schools while giving larger budgets to primarily white schools…

And on and on and on…

We perpetuate racism.  We may not be hurting an individual.  But when we acquiesce to a system that benefits the historical racial majority and harms the historical racial minority, we are racist.  When we assume that the system does what the system will do, and that we should stand back and accept it, EVEN WHEN IT SEEMS BENIGN AND BENEFITS US, we are being racist.

And we know it.  Deep in our heart of hearts…  Somewhere deep in our soul, we know it.  Yet we use the system to justify and to rationalize who we are and what gets done in the name of our society and its systems.

And we know it.  And we know that it’s wrong.

BEING PUSHED INTO INSURRECTION

I have a good friend, a conservative (yes, it's possible) with whom I carry on extremely interesting dialogues.
He shared an opinion with me, and I want to share my somewhat angry partisan response with anyone who's interested. I have been brutally honest in my response.
------------------------------------
He said, "I get the sense that a lot of conservatives are feeling "backed into a corner" to the point where violence is beginning to look like a viable option to almost half of them. "

MY RESPONSE
"Backed into a corner..." How? And how should the left be appropriately and adequately servile? By having their personal rights abridged? By having money poured into wealthy coffers while too many poor people hunger and each day more are foreclosed or evicted? By slashing funding for education? By taking relatively inexpensive meals away from children? By legislating limits on women's rights to determine their own health care? By gerrymandering certain voting blocks out of existence?
I am damned tired of a partisan political position based on superiority and exclusivity and greed insisting that they are being 'damaged' by those who call for more equity and justice. If the conservatives feel they are being backed into a corner, that's because that's EXACTLY what the far right leaders WANT them to believe. This is an orchestrated chasm.
Tell me realistically what pressure the left is exerting on the right.
Tell me realistically what understanding the left is failing to show.
And tell me where the left has failed to meet in the middle, while the right diligently reaches across the aisle.
Hell, we have a man in the White House who is a traditional moderate Republican. He fails to use the veto, he fails to use executive orders, he has capitulated on just about EVERY major economic and social issue during his tenure.
OK, time for a little honestly, since we're talking about a subject as monumental as armed insurrection; the right is looking for a reason to fight just to reclaim class superiority, and the sad thing is they don't have to reclaim it. They have it. But in modern American psyche, that's not enough. They want to cement it and see themselves as the conquering heroes of the white, Euro-centric, entitled American dream. Willing to kill because their so-called leaders have told them that the left wants to take away their white picket fence.
We have way too many people in this nation who are concerned about nothing other than themselves (and possibly their family). We no longer house Americans who are concerned about their neighbors, their community, or even their country if their country isn't doing their bidding. And we certainly don't house Americans who see themselves as Christian in the real sense, embracing the idea of being part of all creation and caring about others in the world.
We're now seeing the beginnings of the cyclic return to the Civil War. And all of the phony rhetoric of that era, used to mask the real goals of economic greed and cultural superiority is being replaced with new phony rhetoric, that masks the same goals today as then: economic greed and cultural superiority.
It is my opinion that for the most part and with very few exceptions, the far right has become the very worst that our nation would permit them to be. Self-absorbed, entitled, vain, angry, greedy, with a totally perverted concept of the equanimity of democracy and the decency of Christianity, and willing to kill to maintain their superiority and position. God help us.

JESUS IS DEAD AND WE HAVE KILLED HIM

JESUS IS DEAD AND WE HAVE KILLED HIM

(An edited excerpt from my new book)

Jesus is dead and we – the church and modern American Christianity have killed him.  We have killed his person, his spirit and his teachings…

One of the facets of Jesus that tradition and dogma has wrung from the Gospels is Jesus’ humanity.  In Jesus, we are presented with a Savior who fully sympathized and empathized.  We have sanitized Jesus to some milquetoast palatable Savior, independent of whether he was real or myth.  In doing this, we have lost a Savior who wept, who experienced tremendous sorrow, who evidenced doubt and apathy.  We have hollowed out our Savior of emotion and made him less for it.  No longer is this Savior fully empathetic with our nature, our plight, our sins and our temptations, but this is a Savior without emotional equivocation.  How sad.

One of the saddest traits that Jesus loses when we sanitize him is anger.  We have morphed Jesus into an impotent warm-fuzzy, capable of platitudes, but incapable of angst and indignation and even rage when God is side-stepped, ignored or diminished.  We have killed that Jesus.

Substitutionary atonement is not license. We like to think that in the New Testament, post-Jesus, discussion of faith versus works, that faith is the ultimate test and redemption. That's a very modern American perspective.

We like to think that Jesus never addressed faith versus works, and that we can leave that debate to Peter and Paul. But that's not the case. The entire life of Jesus, as well as the concept of substitutionary atonement speaks to works and not faith alone.

Consider the very first sermon of Jesus… The very first words Jesus spoke in a teaching and preaching situation. Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Jesus doesn't begin his ministry with a sermon about belief, he begins with a sermon about works and behavior. Repent. Not repent of your beliefs or repent of your faith, but repent of your ways. Why repent? Because the kingdom of heaven is at hand. God's will is paramount. We are to behave a particular way. Behave…

Consider Jesus very last words. Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Not forgive them their beliefs, not forgive them their faith, but forgive them their actions.

From Jesus very first sermon words to his last words on the cross, he was concerned about our behavior. Substitutionary atonement is not license. It doesn't mean that Jesus died, so your behavior, in some wildly relativistic fashion, is every bit as valid as the next person's behavior. It doesn't mean that Jesus was unconcerned about behavior; it means that our behavior needs to be forgiven. And that was Jesus first concern and last concern. The parable the sheep and goats demonstrates that. What will send us to heaven is the way we behave toward others. What will send us to hell is the way we behave toward others. At no other place in the gospel is Jesus quite so clear or definitive or direct regarding what it is that sends us to heaven or to hell.

It is not the gospel that tells us that Jesus was concerned with faith alone, because that's not the case. It is church tradition and our human nature. Consider modern America. Two of the primary political and social issues of our time are gun ownership and the acquisition of wealth without a requirement that the wealth be distributed. Nothing, nothing could be more antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. Yet we believe that we can behave in a way that regards gun ownership and wealth acquisition as valid and good because Jesus forgives us, so my behavior and my motives are just as good as your behavior and your motives.

After all, we pretend, Jesus forgave us and forgives us and wasn't overly concerned about our behavior. That's how we have bastardized the concept of substitutionary atonement. Forgiveness is not license. I can't say that frequently enough. Forgiveness addresses behavior. We have to assume that Jesus was frequently angry with our behavior. The gospel writers tell us that, we see that on a couple occasions in the Gospels. Jesus was frequently frustrated. We see that throughout the Gospels and Jesus asks the question, “How long must I be with this perverse and unbelieving generation?" Jesus was frequently disappointed. When the disciples didn't get it, when they showed a lack of faith and nerve in the ship during the storm, when they failed to stay awake in Gethsemane…

Jesus was angry, Jesus was frustrated, and Jesus was disappointed. Not in lack of faith, but in the behavior of the disciples. His words were constant message and exhortation to behave differently. Behave… Not to think differently, not to feel differently, not to evidence a different faith, but to behave differently. The very fact that he begins his ministry with repent, and ends his life asking that we be forgiven of certain behaviors indicates the importance of behavior to the Christ.

No amount of discussion or debate will negate the fact that Jesus wanted us and wants us to behave differently and that throughout his ministry he was adamant, aggressive, forceful, demanding, supportive, and chastening in his efforts to direct our behavior.

It is sloppy theology, and self-serving wishful thinking to believe that being forgiven for our behavior, is the same thing as assuming that Jesus had no regard for how we behaved.

The disciples were called into accountability for their actions.  Humankind, from the moment of Jesus incarnation, was called into accountability for its actions.  It would be folly to assume that Jesus was ok with any instance of follower or non-follower to behave in a fashion that denied God or God’s reasonable and rightful place in our lives.  It would be similarly folly to assume that Jesus was a happy-go-lucky unconcerned fellow who didn’t really care about how his message was received.  In fact, we need to assume that he perceived himself as scattering seed.  Would he not care where that seed landed or how that seed fared?

Jesus got angry.  We have sanitized the Messiah and don’t generally willingly see that behavior.

Jesus withered a fig tree.

Jesus drove the money lenders from the temple with a whip of cords.

Jesus called the leaders of the church vipers.

Jesus called his best friend Satan.

Jesus called the Syrophonecian woman a dog.

But that Jesus no longer exists.  We have killed him, imagined him out of existence.  Replaced him with some really nice meme, that doesn’t offend, but also doesn’t prioritize a walk with God ABOVE EVERYTHING ELSE.

How I long for a resurrected Jesus who expects loving, committed, decent and meaningful behavior from us.  How I lament his demise.

THE CRUEL, KILLING MINDSET OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT

According to a report in the New York Times, Washington counts all military-age males in a drone strike zone as combatants, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

Now consider that in conjunction with the Administration's recent memo which said that any SUSPECTED American in collusion with terrorists could be killed by the government!

That means that if you are killed, you're guilty.  Period, done deal.  UNLESS after you're killed, it can be PROVEN that you were innocent, in which case you are determined to be innocent -- but dead.

Not unlike the Salem witch trials, where they weighted down and submerged the accused witch.  If she manifested some super power, blew up the dunking device, overcame the guards and survived the submerging, she was guilty and then was killed.  If she did NOT survive the submerging, she was innocent of witchcraft… but was unfortunately deceased.

The super-powered derailing of the dunking test – that never happened.

POSTHUMOUSLY?  REALLY?

ONLY THEN are they counted as a civilian casualty rather than the death of a military person during a wartime engagement?  Fat lot of good (as they say) that does them.

Suddenly where the Florida "Last Man Standing" law came from, is beginning to make sense to me...

Catch 22 is alive and well and as obfuscating and skewed to the benefit of bizarre government behavior as it has ever been.

I guess History really IS written by the winners and survivors.  The dead are either a) witches, b) not witches, c) American citizens who are terrorists, or d) American citizens who are not terrorists; but the United States of America has decided to ‘kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.’

A CHRISTIAN-DEIST MANIFESTO

My perspective as a Christian minister and pastor and my faith tenets are shifting.  This is a beginning to an explanation of where those beliefs currently lead.  Comments, questions, and discussion are welcome.

 

A CHRISTIAN-DEIST MANIFESTO

I am a computer programmer.

I WAS a computer programmer, and I directed and managed those who write programs for computers.  Although I no longer work at that vocation, I am conversant with and quite experienced as a computer programmer.

I wrote many computer programs and those computer programs could do many things.  It is necessary to understand the process of writing a computer program and the resultant program in order to understand the analogy presented in and central to this manifesto.

The programs I wrote (or that anybody could write; such programs are pervasive today) do things, which for most of human history, were thought to be the exclusive domain of human thought and effort.

Those computer programs take incredibly small bits of instruction and link those instructions together to perform useful tasks.  The more sophisticated and complicated those combinations and chains of instructions, the more sophisticated and complicated the resultant computer program and the more sophisticated and complicated the behavior of the computer.

Computer programs play chess.  Computer programs make telephone calls and offer reminders.  Computer programs assist physicians in making medical diagnoses.  Computer programs consider geology and make intelligent and informed recommendations regarding the best locations to drill for fossil fuels.  Computer programs can consider and reject options and look for optimal decisions.  Computer programs can direct incredibly complicated space flights.

Computer programs can learn.  It is a matter of programming.  Computer programs can be written to take past experience into account and to weigh that experience against current real world facts to make some determination.  The success or failure of that decision then is blended into the aggregate ‘awareness’ (knowledge base) of the computer program and the program ‘learns’.  Computers can be quite sophisticated, making decisions, informed guesses, and determinations based on a realm of knowledge, much like human decision-making.  Computers can take actions and perform tasks that are comparable to humans, emulating rudimentary human cognition.

Computers, by virtue of the sophisticated programs that direct them, are smart.  They are capable, intelligent, and capable of learning and of making self-directed changes.  They are fast and talented.  Much of what humans do today, frequently placing our very lives in the ‘hands’ of computers, relies on computer technology and ‘intelligence’.

Computers are rather remarkable and at an amazing state today.

Computers, however, are NOT sentient and do NOT consider themselves in existential, phenomenological ways.  We assume that they do not ‘regard’ themselves and we certainly do not assume that computers and computer programs ‘regard’ us – the program writers.  The creators – if you will.

THERE IS A GULF BETWEEN THAT WHICH IS CREATED AND THAT WHICH CREATES.  The gulf between me as a computer programmer and some computer action is so vast and of such a nature, that the assumption must be made that the computer never, ever could consider or reflect upon me, the programmer.  We assume that computers – plastic, wires, chips, electrodes and electrons – are unable to independently ‘consider’ the programmers: to regard or to form opinions regarding the programmers.  We assume that computers and programmers are quite different in nature and that the nature of computers CANNOT PERMIT SUCH CONSIDERATION.

Yet, within our religious lives and our traditional human religious and theological frameworks, much of humanity daily assumes that the petty, finite, temporal mind of humankind can consider (and perhaps even embrace and emulate) the mind of God.  Hence, the arrogance of the bumper sticker: God said it, and I believe it, and that settles it...

The foundation bases of this manifesto are:

a)      God is Creator, the author and first cause of all things;

b)      God, as Creator, is omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent;

c)      Humankind is the creation of God, a creation born of God’s will;

d)     Humankind is temporal, limited, finite, mortal, capable of error, misunderstanding, misapprehension and wrongdoing;

e)      The gulf between God’s nature and existence and humankind’s nature and existence is sufficiently large that we are unable to consider (let alone comprehend) the nature of God;

f)       Pure deism (incorporating the traditional ‘clockwork creation’ concept) is anathematic to the concept of an omni-benevolent God;

g)      The gulf of understanding and communion between Creator and creation, in the case of programmer and computer, could never be bridged – computers do not have the power to ‘regard’ the programmer and understand the programmer’s nature or existence; programmers lack the ability to imbue existential reflection and introspection into computers;

h)      The gulf of understanding and communion between Creator and creation, in the case of God and humankind, could never be bridged if the onus were on humankind, alone;

i)        Failure to bridge the gap between Creator and creation, in the case of God and humankind, is not consistent with the concept of omni-benevolence;

j)        God provides mechanism(s) for humankind’s limited understanding of portions of God’s being, God’s existence and God’s will;

k)      No ONE mechanism of understanding is adequate to impart the entirety of any aspect (however small) of God’s will to humankind (because of the vast, unimaginable nature of God);

l)        Humankind will continue to fail to understand God’s being, existence, nature and will;

m)    A loving, omni-benevolent God will permit us to see portions of God’s will, as necessary, as it relates to God’s plan for us and our understanding of God’s plan for our behavior;

n)      Permitting us to see portions of God’s will is not inconsistent with an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent God;

o)      Given the diverse and complicated nature of communications and interactions among humans, it is unreasonable to assume that one manifest revelation of God’s being, existence, nature and will would be adequate to address humankind’s understanding of God;

p)      God chooses to manifest God’s self to humankind in various ways (referred to as aspects);

q)      The aspects of God (while manifesting differing views or understandings of God to different humans) must be consistent with one, true God, i.e.: the Creator;

r)       The derivation of differing views of God and understandings of God’s will is due to human limitations, and occurs despite the infinite, unchanging nature of God;

s)       Different views of God, derived from differing human perceptions of the aspects of God, do not contradict or negate one another; they merely define and demonstrate our limited, finite and flawed understanding of the Infinite;

t)       It is conceivable, reasonable and desirable that humans should experience differing perceptions and understandings of God;

u)      Complete understanding of God is not possible, but sharing our limited and personal understanding of the aspects of God is desirable and necessary for us to achieve the fullest possible ‘aggregate’ human understanding of God’s being, existence, nature and will;

v)      No ONE religious revelation, perception, faith, understanding, or practice can be assumed to be a priori divinely inspired based on the tenets of that faith or the conviction of its adherents, NO MATTER WHAT AUTHORITY IT CITES;

w)    No ONE religious revelation, perception, faith, understanding, practice is a priori erroneous, just because it differs from another, NO MATTER WHAT AUTHORITY IT CITES;

x)      We can assume the ‘correctness’ of our faith tenets, faith journey, religious experience, and organized religion only to the extent that they are:

·         Not inconsistent with human and social concepts of decency

·         Not inconsistent with decent behavior as evidenced by other societal and religious experiences

·         Tolerant of other religious experience which may differ from ours (not necessarily tolerant of the behavior which purports that religion as a rationale)

THEREFORE:

a)      We CANNOT negate, disregard, challenge, or assume that some religious revelation or experience is wrong, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT DIFFERS FROM OUR OWN;

b)      Many of the major religions of the world (some of which are regarded as mutually exclusive) may be coexistent explanations of and manifestations of the multiple aspects of the single God.

c)      These understandings speak to some very deeply held traditional Christian thinking, particularly that of the single pathway to salvation and to heaven, which appears counter to the nature of a Creator capable of creating such diversity.