Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:41 AM

Good lord, Kat! What an excerpt.

That is the Holy Word of Life in a nutshell. That's the foundation of existence, and Woody Guthrie put it all down in simple words in what must have been, for him, a moment of pure inspiration. (And Woody wasn't always so nice to the people he knew...but he had the capacity to believe in the innate goodness and noble potential of humanity and to care deeply about people. That's very evident in his work.)

No wonder the young Bob Dylan said of him the he was "the greatest, the holiest" (some words to that effect...I don't recall exactly) The young Bob Dylan loved Woody Guthrie and everything he stood for so much that he'd have done anything for him. That's pretty much how I felt about the young Bob Dylan too. It goes around. When someone can speak a great truth and go straight to the heart of it and lay it bare, hearing that can change another person's life forever.

THANK YOU, Kat! I might never have seen Woody's words on this if you hadn't posted them here.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: GUEST,Steve Baughman
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 01:33 AM

"It just doesn't do to make sweeping statements, lumping all of one group together when the group is so broad."

Kat, good point, and I do know that. It's just hard to keep typing ("Christians, at least those of the evangelical or Catholic variety") over and over. I hope that folks can tell that when I'm criticizing Christian dogmatism my target is not folks who think of Christ as an avatar.

So your point is well taken and I'm glad you made it.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 12:42 AM

Don't apologise to me. I was quoting Woody..I also happen to agree with him, though I am not religious by any means. I am spiritual. I think what he meant was LOVE IS, when it comes down to it, human beings are in a sorry state without love.

As I said before, it seems the very broad brush of generalisation is being used a lot in here, esp. in your postings, Steve. There are plenty of Christians who believe in a metaphysical translation of the Bible, believe Jesus was an avatar, one among several throughout the ages, etc., much as LH posted a while back. It just doesn't do to make sweeping statements, lumping all of one group together when the group is so broad.

There are myriad of these discussions in old threads at the Mudcat. If you do a little research you will find more than you probably imagine exists, here.:-)

Slag, glad you liked it.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: GUEST,Steve Baughman
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:55 PM

"God is Love." Sorry, Kat, I just don't know what that means, and I suspect it means nothing. It just conveys a feeling, like mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......... or wow! or harumph! I do not believe that such a statement says anything about God, only about the mood of the person making the statement.

"Zen comes readily to mind and many other spiritual disciplines can attest to the ineffability of the spiritual moment." Slag, great points, thanks for being a deep thinker here, (I mean that seriously.) But I think there's a diff bet the faith of Xtnty and the "faith" you see in Zen. The latter does not make propositional claims of the sort that Xtnty does. There are no "wrong" facts in Zen, (s'far as I know, though I'm weak on Zen).

Christianity, by contrast, at least the evangelical and Catholic kind, makes plenty of factual claims, Jesus rose bodily, he was part One of Three, God exists and has XYZ qualities, God gets pissed if thou dost x or y or z, etc. These are FACTUAL claims, they are either true or not. I see no room for "faith" in deciding such matters, any more than I see a place for faith in believing the earth is a certain age, string theory is true, quarks exist, Alexander had a horse named Bucephulus, etc etc.   

Imagine someone saying "I have faith that Oswald killed Kennedy." How would that sit?

I say abolish faith. Believe what the evidence supports, and where the evidence stops, take a position of epistemic humility, accept that you don't know and don't use "faith" to justify the beliefs your heart desires.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Slag
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:14 PM

I love it Kat! When you've said Love, you've said it all! It was Jesus who said "God is love". God is not willing that any should perish. There are about six different words in the Greek that can be translated "love' and the three most common are "eros" the love between lovers, "phileo" to be a friend and "agape" which is a selfless love for others. And it is this last that is the supreme and sacrificial love that so moves us and motivates heroic acts.

Steve, I didn't invent "faith" and it's not a refuge for the intellectually challenged though some may use it as such. I'm saying that the human intellect is limited and can only take one so far. Human reason cannot save you spiritually. You have to deal with spiritual maters ummm, how can I say this? SPIRITUALLY! That may appear as a tautology but it's really not. It's presenting a different realm which has partial conversation with the empirical world. You can approach the object of faith with the words of men but it cannot be possessed via a verbal, purely intellectual understanding. And Christianity is not alone in this. Zen comes readily to mind and many other spiritual disciplines can attest to the ineffability of the spiritual moment. But you are right in that it does effectively end any discussion on a purely intellectual level at some point. Our courts don't even ask for absolute proof but proof beyond a reasonable doubt or in matters civil, a preponderance of the evidence.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Leadfingers
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:58 PM

If Amazing Grace is OK to be sung at the inauguration of Liverpool as the 'City of Culture ' its good enough for any one !

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:50 PM

Some great writing there, LH. Have to say I agree with you on all of the important points. I think what Woody said bears repeating:

MY SECRET - Woody Guthrie

Love is the only God that I'll ever believe in.

The books of the holy bible never say but one time just exactly what God is, and in those three little words it pours out a hundred million college educations and says, God Is Love.

And that is the only real definite answer to ten thousand wild queries and questions that I my own self tossed at my bible. That is the only really sensible, easy, honest, warm, plain, quick and clear answer I found - when I was ready to throw so-called fearful cowardly thieving poisoning religion out my trash door, it was those three words that made not only religion, but also several other sorts of superstitious fears and hatreds in me meet one very quick death.

God is Love.
God is really love.

Love can be, and sure enough is, moving in all things, in all places, in all forms of life at the same snap of your finger.

Love is the powers of magnetic powers and repulsions that causes all shapes and forms of life to run to a hotspot and meet its mate.

Love makes this wonder then, in fifty thousand billions of uncounted trillions of life's forms, shapes, patterns, in every step and in every stage of life; in the lives of the living cells, in the lives of the living bugs; the lives of the biting insects; the lives of the living reptiles, the lives of the living animals; and in the very life bloods of all the living forms of birds; and in the same plain ways all through the moves and the actions, the very thoughts, of every human being that travels here in plain view of our eyes.

Love moves them all. And in all of them love does move.

And wherever I look to see a wiggle or a waggle or a shape of humanly form, there I know is a thing not to be in any way hated, not in any matter despized (sic) nor even feared, nor shadowed around with insane cold suspicions; but to test forever and for all my days and for all my nights too, my powers of love, (I mean by that) my own powers to love.

Love casts out hate.
Love gets rid of all fears.
Love washes all clean.
Love forgives all debts.
Love forgets all mistakes.

Love overcomes all errors and excuses and pardons and understands the key reasons why the mistake, the error, the stumble, the sprawl, the fall, was made.

Love heals all.
Love operates faster and surer than space or time, or both.

Love does not command you, order you, dictate to you, nor even try to base your acts and your actions; love much rather asks for you to tell its forces what to do and where to go and how to build up your planet(s) here by the blueprint plans of your warmest heart desire.


Love can't operate in your behalf as long as your own sickly fear will not permit love to operate in your behalf.

Love is universal.
Love governs the spin and the whirl of this earthly planet all around through your skies here;
Love moves and love balances every other planet star you see there above you by the uncounted blue jillions.
Love moves and balances fifty billion and more kinds of powers and rays and forces inside every little grain of sand. And love causes peace and harmony to whirl a new whole universe on the inside of every little atom.

Love catches up with space.
Love outruns time.
Love makes the big world little and the little world big.

Love makes all good seed fertile.
Love multiplies and love divides.

Love is in the triggery works of all mathematical numberings.

Love moves to drive the weather and all of the powers of your elements. I see above all how your minds and your storms and all of your clear sunny skies are not just big accidents.

Love allows no accident to happen.
Love lets no waster occur.
Love wastes no ounce of motion.

Love works all mysteries.
Love works all miracles; yet I call no working of love a miracle. (Nor a mystery).

Love labours only for the next good and welfare of the most people; for by doing the most good for the most people, love operates fastest.

Love balances, holds, and controls all the moves and acts of the sun; the sun must shine by the grace and permit and by the very permission of love itself.

Love fires and burns and boils around in every inch of the great fiery belly and great fiery face of the sun, but, love also does the same job for several other millions of great suns Greater in size and power than yonder's daily new morning sun.

Love is all force.
Love is all power.
Love is all energy.
Love is all strength.
Love is all health.
Love is all beauty.
Love is all good work well done.
Love is all fun.
Love is all pleasure, all joys known.
Love is all eternity.
Love is here now.
Love is the thinker of every good thought.
Love is all there be.
Love is all space. There be no space that is empty of love.
Love ties all things together.
Love makes all things one thing.
Love lends all. Love takes all.

Love flows over with more love lights than all of the great splashes of all our great sunshiney waterfalls.Love kisses above and down below your waterfalls.

Love makes all your good & bad laws and love takes up your own sickly laws and breaks them into sand grains just for the laffs and for the kicks.

Love is always glad to make you gladder.
Love feels sad when it makes you sadder.
Love works best when you give it a big job of work to do.
Love loves you most when you love love the most.
Love sees you best when you see love the best.
Love finds you when you find love.Love finds you where you find love.
Love meets you where you meet love.
Love gives to you what you give to love.
Love loves most of all to work for you.

Love loves most of all to build up or to tear down as you desire and as you command.


I say to you, take up your post and your command of love.
I say to you, take up your very own gift and talent.
I say to you, take up your power of command.
I say to you (and to all of you and yours), take up your word, take word of your command.
I say to you, this power to command the absolutely neutral powers of love, this command is your very own birthright; no piece nor coin, no pile of gold, no penny paid, no dollar mailed, no stamp licked; no priest asked, no minister called-unless you so desire it and so command things to be thusly and solely (for the well and goodful use of most of us).

Command love to work with you and for you.

Command love to operate in you and through you to heal, to help, to lift, to bless, to cleanse and to spread the good word and the good news that the day of human hate and fear and dark lostness is all over and all gone and a day of new bright command at your hand;
For your own sense of your own commandery will grow only as you pass the great command (word) onto all of your dear dearly beloveds in humanly shapes of misery, till your commands sets them freed into their own commandery


To love is to shape, to plan, to order and to command.
To know how to love fully you must learn how to command fully.

No human is full grown till the love tells him to command all. Fear before none. Quiver before nothing. Kneel at no spot. Beg no cure. Be a slave to none and master to none.
Command the skies.
Command the planets.
Command the starlights.
Command the very heavens.
Command love to move and to act for you and your sweet mate-and for all the other such love praise like you and your mate and your children.

Command your plan (in love) to come to pass.

The resolution in my union hall is a command passed on in love for the best welfare of the union members.

You have to learn to love even your most deadly bitter enemy if you'd really hit the most high peak trail of your own powers as a love commander. You must bring death to none and life to all or you'll just never quite tip the high top as a love commander.

Your love command must forever be just exactly the direct opposite of war's crazy baseless hatreds. Peace. Peace. And sweet sweet peace must be the song of thy tongue tip. Peace is love. Love is peace. Your love command must for all eternity and be your peace command.

One true love commander can turn the universes of hate into heavenroads and byways of love, love, love.
Sweet love.
Sweet love.
Sweet love.

Excerpt from Born To Win, by Woody Guthrie
Copyright (C) 1965 (renewed by Woody Guthrie Publications, Inc.)
Use without permission prohibited.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing
From: Jeri
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:48 PM

If this thread is now just the typical God argument and is no longer about music, I believe it should go down to BS...

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:45 PM

Me too, Steve. ;-)

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: GUEST,Steve Baughman
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:37 PM

"it isn't about evidence but faith." WRONG! If you are making a propositional claim, (ie. Jesus was God), then you are epistemically obligated to base that on evidence. Otherwise you can spout off whatever you want, and when challenged simply retreat to the last bastion of the intellectual coward, "Faith", (which I refer to as the "F" word). Once someone invokes the F word, meaningful discussion ends. Faith does not JUSTIFY belief, it simply provides the willing believer with a way out of having to justify her choice of beliefs.

Little Hawk and Don, I love y'all's view of God, strongly prefer it to the Christian and Islamist views of God as human on steroids (really really strong steroids). And sure, if we say "god is everything," that might make us treat other creatures nicerly, as LH points out, but it really isn't saying anything about God, just about the way we define him.

I vote that we all be nicer even though we don't care whether god is everything or not.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 09:26 PM

Yeah, but I believe everyone is God. Someone like Jesus, well, I think he had reached the point where he was consciously God, and almost nobody does that, because they're too caught up in their little personality. But that's what an Avatar is, I think, someone who has come into the full consciousness of the indwelling presence of God. He (or she) then acts, in effect, as God, not merely in an unconscious or an unaware manner as many people often do when they demonstrate love or truth in a powerful way, but with full awareness of what he or she is doing ALL the time.

There's a long tradition of such Avatars in Asia, for instance, and most of the Asian teachers now recognize that Jesus was one such Avatar, as were others in his region of the world in even more ancient times.

But I'm merely saying what I think about it. Do I know? How could I know? I simply have an opinion...or what I'd call my "best guess". Can I assume anyone that else knows for sure? Why would I assume that? On what basis? And why would I assume that a specific religious text from any specific ancient culture is the final word on the matter? I think further inspired texts are probably being written right now by someone, but they might not be heard about generally for some time...or not at all.

If Jesus or someone like him was walking the Earth right NOW, and speaking the WHOLE TRUTH most people now wouldn't even know about it. He'd be ignored by most people. They wouldn't even be interested. They don't want the TRUTH, they want security, money, a lover, a husband, a new car, a new house, children, a career, etc... We might hear about it much later, long after he was gone. We might not.

Be that as it may, Slag, if your way works for you then that's fine with me. (as I think you know)

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Slag
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 08:46 PM

Yes, we drag out our definitions of God (i.e. God created in Man's own image). The revelation of God from the Bible is quite different. For one (and especially in regards to Bertram Russell's flip comment) it isn't about evidence but faith. That which is not of faith is sin (hamartia in the koine Greek, "missing the mark") and the wages of sin is death. Spiritual and, sooner or later, physical.

And what you all say is quite acceptable for your discussion, how you perceive God. I have no problem with your ideas and the discussion is interesting. But If you are going to discuss Amazing Grace and Christianity then you have to accept at least the premise of the Christian God, namely Jesus Christ as portrayed in the New Testament. That is the source.

Paul's first letter to the Church at Thessaloniki, chapter 2 verse 13: "For this cause also we thank God without ceasing because when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you the believe."

"... in you that believe." Which is key. It can be taken as just the words of men and understood as such. Jesus was just a man, a really great guy, a wise teacher, an avatar, a guru, a good deed doer, etc.;   or God! Compare that with Matthew 16:13-17, Peter's confession. It's a matter of belief, not a fact to be proved by logic or a preponderance of the evidence.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 08:14 PM

"How a particular individual envisions God doesn't say much about God, but it speaks volumes about that particular individual."

Yeah, Don! That's right.

I don't see God in my image. ;-) Meaning, I don't see God as a skinny guy with no facial hair and bushy hair on his head. LOL!

For one thing, I don't see God as a "guy". If I was inclined to see God as a person at all (and I'm not), I think She'd look more like Joan of Arc, or Joan Baez at age 22 or some kind of pure and heroic female figure, come to think of it.... ;-)

I don't see God as any kind of visual or biological image of a person at all. I see God as something completely indefinable in those terms.

People who see God as a remote, harsh, strict judge meting out rewards and divine justice are, I believe, seeing a reflection of their own harsh, vengeful, indulgent (to their favorites) and judgemental (to the rest) natures...and I can't relate to that view of it at all.

That's the "separate" God concept again, and I don't buy it.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Peace
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 08:02 PM

I like this type of art.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 07:51 PM

"God created man in His image."

Okay, whether or not that is true, we do know that man(kind) returned the favor. How a particular individual envisions God doesn't say much about God, but it speaks volumes about that particular individual.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 07:38 PM

Steve, God is for everyone "whatever you want to define it/him/her as". That's how it works. The way you define "God" is what God is for you.

That's the point. If your definition of God is small, mean, and exclusive, then it results in behaviours that are small, mean, and exclusive, agreed?

That's my argument with the conventional separated view of God...it's small, mean, and usually very exclusive. It puts a few things in a little cultural bowl, and says, "These are the things of my God, the only true God, and they are sacred. but all the rest is profane. My God is the only God."

That's not true.

People like to believe stuff like that. It makes them feel really special. It makes them feel safe. It makes them look down on others who don't share their specific beliefs. Such an attitude is small, mean, and exclusive.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 07:22 PM

"Little Hawk. I have no problem with God existing if you define it like that. But I really don't think that says anything, other than that you define God that way."

Yes, Steve it does say something. It says that everything is sacred and of immeasurable value. Not some things....everything. It says that everything and everyone is worthy of respect and love. It says that everyone bears equal responsibility, and that we are all one...therefore what you do to or for another IS ultimately exactly what you end up doing do to or for yourself. It says that all beings are sacred, not just human beings, not just human beings of your group or nation. It says that everything and everyone plays a vital part.

Now consider all that in a philosophical light, and see where it could lead humanity...if believed and applied. The implications are simply tremendous. It is those tremendous moral implications that lie at the heart of real spirituality and which are the hope of the world. All religions have attempted in some way to grapple with those great implications...as have all moral philosophies...but they tend to get so caught up in the outer trimmings (dress, ceremony, which book to follow, which leader to follow, which rules to follow) that they lose sight of the central calling....which is to love ALL of life and all of creation in fullness, not to be mean and stingy and love just the little tiny parts of it that of which you have decided to say, "These ones are mine."

I do not regard God as "some being with a consciousness separate from human consciousness". I regard God as the summation of ALL consciousness, human and otherwise...and I regard the consciousness of any one human as a very small fragment of that totality, but still something sacred in its own right.

If I look at your banjo, I'm seeing a manifestation of God's creative consciousness put to work to make an instrument, created through a willing and capable human being who used free will to utilize and give life to some measure of that creative consciousness, and if I look at you, I'm looking in the face of one small aspect of the living God...as is true also if I look at any other human being...or anything that has life at all.

That's if I remember who I really am and who others are. If I forget, then I'm just looking at some guy named Steve, and I can discount you without a second thought.

What I choose to see, that's up to me. It's a question of my awareness at the time. Better if I see you as valuable, just as valuable as myself, than if I don't. Better if I see everyone as valuable in that same way.


Don Firth - Good to hear. ;-) I have also met many people in the conventional churches who have a similar understanding.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: GUEST,Steve Baughman
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 07:10 PM

Banjos, on the other hand, Murray, are subject to a unified and agreed upon definiton so we can talk meaningfully about them.

Although I don't consider tenor banjos "real" banjos :-)

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: GUEST,Steve Baughman
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 07:08 PM

Don. Little Hawk, et al. If God is whatever you want to define it/him/her as, then all discussion is vapid and useless. Like me asking if SWABAKTI is a good thing or a bad thing. If you define it as good, then it's good for you.

But the discussion accomplishes nothing, except to make people think they're talking about something when they're not.

Maybe that's why Wittgenstein said "what cannot be put into words should not be spoken off".

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:22 PM

if God is a banjo, then at least he has a sense of humor ...

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 06:01 PM

Once again, Little Hawk, I think we find ourselves on the same page.

Weirdly enough, perhaps, Barbara and I belong to a local church (Central Lutheran Church in Seattle). Barbara was raised Lutheran. But she doesn't swallow ideas wholesale, she's a thinker. I, in turn, wobbled around from a vague belief in God early on to militant atheism (college sophomores tend to do that), and finally pondered my way into pretty much the concept that you enunciated just above.

And, lo! it turns out that Barbara believes pretty much as I do. When we got married and I started going to church with her, I was a bit amazed to find that the pastor (with whom I've had many enjoyable conversations and debates) and a fair number of our friends in the congregation believe the same! There are some who hold to the more rigid "orthodox" dogma, but I think their number is on the wane. There are a lot of young people in the church, not particularly involved in the typical selfish concerns such as "personal salvation," or converting the rest of the world, but focus on peace (the church we go to is the national headquarters of the Lutheran Peace Foundation), stewardship of the earth (environmentalism), and alleviating poverty and suffering in the world (free meal programs, finding low-cost housing, and other social programs—without insisting on making people pay for the meal by listening to a sermon). In short, do what Jesus told his followers that they should do. Most of them deplore the pronouncements of fundamentalist Christians and gnash their teeth at the idea some people have that "fundies'" represent all Christians, and generally regarding them as modern day Philistines: all rules, no soul.

One woman (a feisty lady in her eighties) said that, as far as she is concerned, God is not any kind of objective entity, God is a human concept of the Ideal. And should be spelled with two "O's."

Do I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and that his physical body ascended into heaven? That's the usual myth applied to almost all important religious figures. As Joseph Campbell says, where many religions go wrong is when they mistake myth and metaphor for historical fact. Is Jesus is the Son of God? Or God incarnate? Well, that depends on how you look at it. Define God!

Am I a Christian? Some people would say yes. Others would say no. And what do I say?

Hell, I don't know! Does it matter?

As some wise person once said, "God is a verb."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: GUEST,Steve Baughman
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 05:48 PM

"I think God is the entire fabric of existence..."

Little Hawk. I have no problem with God existing if you define it like that. But I really don't think that says anything, other than that you define God that way.

I could say "God is my banjo" and all I've done is make a statement about my arbitrary and idiosyncratic definition of the word "god." Not sure that does much.

Sure, if god is my banjo, then I recant my atheism.

If, on the other hand, god is some being with a consciousness separate from human consciousness, a being who thinks, feels, cares and does stuff that affects us, then I stand by my atheism.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 04:49 PM

Sounds like an interesting book, Don.

I think the place people always go wrong in their notions about "God" is that they imagine something (or someone) that's separate from themselves, therefore something by defintion that has limits...rather than something limitless which they are a part of, and which everything else is a part of.

They posit a separate God-being, and immediately they have lost the very essence of what God is, in my opinion. I think God is the entire fabric of existence...the planets, energies, creatures, and phenomena are the various tiny fibers that make up the visible, noticeable form OF that universal fabric which is ultimately: one thing. It's a singularity, manifesting in trillions of apparent aspects.

People assume a separation between themselves and (the) God (of their imaginination) which has in fact never occurred, and they run around trying to "fix what ain't broke", fretting about "original sin" and engaging in all sorts of compensatory emotional gyrations to make themselves feel okay about it. Atheists quite rightly object to the more silly extremes of those gyrations, but they've also missed the boat, in my opinion, because they too imagine that very small concept of "God", the separate God-being, which they quite properly find unbelievable...because it IS unbelievable! ;-)

I base this on a lifetime of non-denominational investigation into the various religions and philosophies that are out there. It has left me happily free of religion and full of faith at the same time.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: GUEST,Steve Baughman
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 04:43 PM

All this concern for our health is well and good. But let's not forget that one good reason (IMHO the best reason) to be a vegetarian if that it's good for the health of the animals.

I am bothered when vegy discussions focus solely on human interests. We share the planet with other sentient beings. T'would be good to keep them in mind.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Barbara
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 04:27 PM

In re the original topic, I always want to know how the song came to be, and it sometimes influences my singing of it. I do still sing Amazing Grace, though not as something I believe, but rather as a song that has a good tune that lots of people know. The difference is, I don't lead it/start it.
At that same sing I sang "How Can I Keep From Singing?", a song that is closer to what I feel/believe.
Here's another dilemma I've run into: I liked "Song For Vic" [Borneo] a lot better before I learned why it was written. I still like it, but not as much. Borneo

And what about "It's All Part of Being a Pirate"? The rewrite by Tom Lewis is much better known, and funnier IMHO, but the original author doesn't want people doing Tom's version, just his. What's right practice there? Being a Pirate

And here's another dilemma: Mary Garvey rewrote "Deep Blue Sea" to make an excellent song about child slavery, based on a news story that later turned out to be inaccurate. Should we sing it anyway? child slavery

What do I do? I sing the songs I love in the versions I love, regardless of the PCness of it all.
Blessings,
Barbara

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 04:10 PM

LH, good points. I know as a vegetarian, I still do not get enough protein, partly from bad habits from not knowing how to use soy and partly from not being able to use lots of higher protein products due to high sodium content including cheeses and even the soy-based "hot dogs." :-) Might also point out that about 2/3rds of the planet's surface is given over to grazing of animals used for meat. A very inefficient and not very healthy use of our resources. Here's more:



How Our Food Choices Can Help Save the Environment
From a speech delivered to EarthSave Baltimore
by Professor Steve Boyan

The Union of Concerned Scientists says that the two things that people can do which will most help the environment are (1) to drive a fuel efficient automobile (that means, not a SUV or a truck), along with a decision to live near to where you work. That recommendation is indeed important. Anything you can do either in what you drive or where you live is important. The 2nd thing the Union of Concerned Scientists proposed that people could do which also would have dramatically good consequences for the environment: to not eat beef.

I'm going to go one step farther than UCS: I suggest that you refuse to eat any animal or animal product produced on a factory farm. And I'm going to tell you why.

In 1990, when I first read, that 10 people could be fed with the grain that you would feed a cow that would be turned into food for one person, I was impressed. But I was not moved. The reason was: if 10 people would be fed because I gave up meat, I'd give it up. But, I thought, if I give up meat, it won't have that impact: it probably won't have any impact on anything at all, except me.

I was wrong. If I had known that for every pound of beef I did not eat, I would save anywhere from 2500 to 5000 gallons of water - you heard it, for every pound of beef, 2500 to 5000 gallons of water, I would have been moved. It's a good idea to save water; we are depleting our underground aquifers faster than we are replenishing them. The largest one, the Ogallala, which covers a vast part of the country from the mid-west to the mountain states, is being depleted by 13 trillion gallons a year. It is going to run out. Northwest Texas is already dry. They can't get any water from their wells.

One may read the rest of it HERE.

Steve, the way I read it, is HH is striving to be a supremely compassionate being, which we might all hope for, for ourselves. He is after all huan like hte rest of us. While he struggles with this, his compromise is that he not participate in the death of the animals which provide him with food. I am sure, at some point, he will be able to go completely vegetarian and will have attained that state of Compassion which is so desirable. I would note he has it down to six months out of the year.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 04:02 PM

Thanks for posting that, kat. Isn't it interesting how, when one knows the whole story, the bumper-sticker version tends to look a bit mean-spirited? An object lesson for all of us in this political year, no?

Bit of thread drift, but since this thread has wandered all over the map anyway. . . .

Of the many books I've read in my life (and having been an avid reader since the age of six, that's a fair number), one of the most enjoyable and thought-provoking pieces of fiction I've read is Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow. It's hard to classify. Many people regard it as science-fiction because it deals with space travel and alien contact. And it has won several awards as best science fiction novel of the year (1997-98). But one usually finds it in the "General Literature" section of most book stores. It also deals, in a most interesting way, with religion.

Whether the reader believes in God or not is not really at issue here. But the belief in God of several characters in the book is. Interesting cast of characters. Some of the characters are non-believers. And during a long journey in the confines of a sub-light interstellar space ship, believers and non-believers get along reasonably well, although sparks fly occasionally. By the way, several of the characters are aliens (although, strictly speaking, they are inhabitants of the planet being visited, so it's the Earthlings who are the "aliens"). God is not a character in the book.

Mary Doria Russell was raised Catholic, then later converted to Judaism. Someplace along the line, she got very philosophical, and her first novel, The Sparrow, was one of the results of her ruminations. It may not answer anyone's questions, but it will certainly give a reader a few questions to think about. In fact, book clubs and adult forums associated with some of the more liberal Christian churches have discussed the book at length, and have found it very thought-provoking and challenging.

The expedition is to a newly discovered inhabited planet in the nearby Alpha Centauri system.

From the back cover:
      After the first exquisite songs were interpreted by radio telescope, U.N. diplomats debated long and hard whether and why human resources should be expended in an attempt to reach the world that would become known as Rakhat. In the Rome offices of the Society of Jesus, the questions were not whether or why, but how soon the mission could be attempted and whom to send.
      The Jesuit scientists went to Rakhat to learn, not to proselytize. They went so that they might come to know and love God's other children. They went for the reason Jesuits have always gone to the farthest frontiers of human exploration. They went for the greater glory of God.
      They meant no harm.

The expedition goes horribly wrong. And the Jesuits who sponsored the expedition hold an inquiry to learn what happened. But Father Emilio Sandoz, as far as they know, the only survivor, refuses to talk. Then, when he finally does blurt out what happened, they are horrified. The following day, they are walking in a garden, trying to recover from the revelation and make sense of it. The following conversation takes place:

      "There's an old Jewish story that says in the beginning God was everywhere and everything, a totality. But to make creation, God had to remove Himself from some part of the universe, so something besides Himself could exist. So He breathed in, and in the places where God withdrew, there Creation exists."
      "So God just leaves?" another priest asks angrily. "Abandons creation? You're on your own, apes. Good luck!"
      "No. He watches. He rejoices. He weeps. He observes the moral drama of human life and gives meaning to it by caring passionately about us, and remembering."
      The Father General quotes Matthew 10:29: "Not one sparrow can fall to the ground without your Father knowing about it."
      "But the sparrow still falls," says the priest.

Whether one is of a religious bent or not, this is an outstanding novel. As is the sequel, Children of God. Both are available in paperback.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: GUEST,Steve Baughman
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 03:53 PM

Thanks for the Dalai Lama info. I did not know that. Hey, he's a great force for much of what I believe in, I've been to Tibet, love the whole scene, and do not want to pick on the guy too much.

HOWEVER, it does seem to me that being opposed to slaughtering animals for food, but parcitipating in eating them "for health reaons" is a bit like being opposed to stealing, but doing it for time to time "for financial reasons."

What I hear the D.L saying is "compassion for all animals, but I'm ok killing them when my liver needs it."

Or am I being unfair to H.H.?

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Peace
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 03:34 PM

Quinoa. Great stuff.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 03:25 PM

Thanks for the excellent post about the Dalai Lama, Kat.

Most North Americans now eat a great deal more meat than their body requires, and it is a major cause of chronic health problems. Most people in this society would be better off to eat about a quarter of the meat they are presently consuming. They'd also be better off to eat a lot less salt and sugar, and a lot less white flour products.

As for vegetarianism, some people thrive on it...and some people don't. Everyone has to find the diet that suits them best. Some people need meat in their diet, while others don't. You can get all the protein the human body needs in any case by eating various forms of beans and lentils, for example.

Meat is not the only good source of protein.

One reason that North American vegetarians often end up not eating a very good diet is that they don't know what foods are needed to balance out their diet properly...so they end up eating, say, a lot of salad and dairy products and grains...but they don't eat the beans or the lentils or other things they need.

Be that as it may, the most common causes of illness due to diet in North America are the OVER-consumption of meat, processed foods, sugar, salt, starch, coffee, soft drinks, and junk food generally.

"Do you want to Supersize that?"

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 02:48 PM

If God is omnipresent, Steve, which seems to be a fairly common spiritual concept if you look into it the more esoteric spiritual literature, then absolutely everything is evidence! ;-)

People get into problems with their ideas about God primarily because they think of "him" as some sort of large separate human-like being who is "out there somewhere"...like a great big powerful guy that lives across the street or in the next subdivision or something. Like Saddam Hussein or George Bush or the Queen? They can then blame him for the stuff they don't like, strike bargains with him, and demand evidence of his existence.

Pathetic. ;-) No wonder they have trouble believing in "him".

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 02:43 PM

Well, I see the broad brush of sweeping generalisations has been applied liberally in this thread. Without getting into it too much, I would point out the following:


In the mid 1960s, the Dalai Lama was impressed by ethically vegetarian Indian monks and adopted a vegetarian diet for about a year and a half. Apparently he consumed primarily nuts and milk. Unfortunately, he contracted Hepatitis B and his liver was seriously damaged. For health reasons, he was advised by his personal physicians to consume meat. While he has eaten meat in moderation ever since, the Dalai Lama has repeatedly acknowledged that a vegetarian diet is a worthy expression of compassion and contributes to the cessation of the suffering of all living beings. However, he eats meat only on alternate days (six months a year). He is a semi-vegetarian, though he wishes to be a full one. By making an example of cutting his meat consumption in half, he is trying to gently influence his followers.

"While many of the great Tibetan teachers did and do eat animals, the Dalai Lama has broken new ground by publicly stating his case for vegetarianism. If we seriously consider the compassion inherent in His Holiness' advice and actions, Buddhist meat-eaters could similarly try to eat vegetarian at least every other day to start out with. Since Buddhists have taken vows not to kill, they should not support a livelihood that makes others kill. Even if one does not have great compassion for animals this would meritoriously save humans from performing heinous deeds. The power of each human being becoming vegetarian releases the most intense suffering of the animal realm—the agony of factory-farmed animals. This profound action can help slow the grinding wheels of samsara, bringing to a halt the cycles of suffering of the entire animal realm and influencing their eventual liberation. When animals are not just looked upon as creatures to fill our stomachs, they can be seen as they really are—beings who have the same Buddha nature as we all do.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: GUEST,Steve Baughman
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 02:09 PM

"As for God, you'll have a chance to tell Him all about it. "

When Bertrand Russell was asked what he'll say to God on judgement day about why he failed to believe, he said "You didn't give us enough evidence, God."

Quite simple, as long as God allows the state of affairs to be such that reasonable minds can disagree about his existence, he has no reason to be upset with those who doubt.

Christians who think God will be punishing unbelief harbor a very peculiar notion of God's sense of justice, namely that he doesn't have one.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:07 PM

Portrait of God looking at the Universe He created and thinking, "My Self!! What have I done!??"

Hosanna?

Don Firth

P. S. KaBOOM!!!   [Sound of lightning striking.]
HAH! Missed me again!!

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Slag
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 02:56 AM

Sorry I misjudged you Steve! As for God, you'll have a chance to tell Him all about it.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: GUEST,Steve Baughman
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 01:02 AM

"thank you SB for your high standard whereby you judge the Dali Lama and God Himself."Slag.

Slag, I think you misread me. I'm not judging the Dalai Lama, at least not for anything other than eating meat. God, on the other, does have real moral problems.

:-)

Phew! Thank God he doesn't exist!

sb

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:19 AM

Chongo is seldom at a loss for words. ;-)

The poor little guy's been working so hard lately that he's got no time for Mudcat. 2 smuggling cases, 1 missing person, and a triple murder to solve. It's great to see Chongo busy for a change, and able to make enough moola to keep himself in whisky and bananas whilst tracking down the bad guys.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Slag
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 12:01 AM

Oops!? Wrong thread maybe there LH but I DO appreciate it nonetheless! Your earlier thoughts above were what I have come to expect from you: cogent, precise and right to the heart of the matter. Only Chongo might do better, were he so inclined.

And speaking of inclines, thank you SB for your high standard whereby you judge the Dali Lama and God Himself. Had we only known.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 07:58 PM

"Sancho and Hefty"

Livin on the road my friend, was gonna keep you lean and mean
Now you wear size Xtra Large
Your hair's slicked back with vaseline
You weren't your momma's only boy, but her hungriest it seems
She began to cry when you broke the scales
And sank right through the floor!
Sancho was a football king, he rode a big white limousine
He wore his bling outside his vest
Which turned the other gangstas green
But Sancho met his match you know, on the pavement down in old 'Frisco
Nobody heard his dyin' words when he said, "I gots to go!"

And all the LAPDs say, they could've had him any day
They only let him slip away, out of blindness I suppose

Hefty he can't dance the blues all night long like he used to do
The pavement Sancho bit down south ended up in Hefty's mouth
The day they laid poor Sancho low, Hefty split for Kokomo
Where he got the kingsize waterbed, there ain't nobody knows

All the LAPDs say, they could've had him any day
They only let him slip away out of blindness I suppose

The boys tell how old Sancho fell, and Hefty's livin' in Penthouse "L"
Old Frisco's quiet, L.A.'s hot
And Sancho's turf's been sold and bought
Now Sancho needs your prayers it's true, but save a few for Hefty too
He only did what a man must do, and now he's growing old

All the LAPDs say, they could've had him any day
They only let him go so long, out of blindness I suppose

I even heard Mark Fuhrman say, "I coulda had him any day!"
They only let him get away, out of blindness I suppose

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 07:50 PM

I knew it was funny. Wry, anyway;-) Was that better?

As to Dalai Lama eating meat, it turns out that Buddhism doesn't actually require vegetarianism. I had some veggie friends who went on a peace trek that was run by some buddhists, and the told the veggies that their dietary needs were slowing down the march, and that they were being selfish. Gotta hand it to the buddhists--

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: GUEST,Steve Baughman
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 01:02 PM

Yup, it was. Although I do see his meat eating as gross hypocrisy. I would love to ask him about it some day. But no, he's not a scumbag, in my book.

Sorry you think this controversy is "silly." But I'm glad you're following it/them still. (There are actually quite a few controversies being discussed here.)

sb

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: PoppaGator
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 12:57 PM

I had resolved, more than once, not to involve myself further in this silly controversy ~ but it refuses to die, going on and on, day after day, and once again I find myself sucked in.

I know many folks who are the nicest kinds of atheists, including my sister and her husband who are currently visiting.

I also know a little about other kinds of atheists, such as, for instance, Josef Stalin, murderer of millions and perhaps a meat-eater as well.

What I didn't know was that the Dalai Lama is a scumbag.

Yeah, I know, that was undoubtedly intended as humor...

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 12:37 PM

Should we be singing folk music at all? ;-)

Please refer to the thread of that title for more revelations on this burning matter...

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: GUEST,Steve Baughman
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 12:46 AM

"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you. -- Genesis 9:3" Plus all that "slaughter 'em for ceremony" stuff, and the passage about taking dominion over ever animal. I'd hate to be animal in the Bible.

Or in the Dalai Lama's palace. The scumbag eats meat, not sure how he justifies it, but he does.

But come on Michael. I am on record as saying that I don't think religion changes behavior much because people merely interpret its rules as rubber stamping their self-interested behaviors. So, no, I do not think that but for Christianity we'd all be vegetarian hippies living in a commune (though that would be nice, and better for the world.)

I like your point, if a nice person becomes a Christian they'll be a nice Christian, if a nice person becomes an atheist they'll be a nice atheist. I was a nice Christian and became a nice atheist. Christianity did not make me nicer, neither did atheism. I will say, however, atheism causes me to view my fellow sentient beings as having ONE SHOT at happiness, and therefore to feel compassion when I see them fail. Although I suppose I could also, fully consistent with atheism, just say "Hey, screw them, it won't matter in the long run, and besides, they'll be dead soon anyway."

Ted, I am sorry not to get your hint at humor. My computer screen (an old dinosaur that belongs in the 'puter museum) contains only black print and it did not pick up the twinkle in your eye, and when I held my ear to the screen I heard no snicker or knee slapping at your end. All I saw was "There is nothing about "atheism" that makes people compassionate--so how you'll manage that is beyond me--", which sounded to me like a serious comment, and one that I felt needed a serious response, especially given that as an atheist I take myself very seriously :-)

luv,
sb

:-)

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 12:03 AM

I've read what people say, Steve, and I know what they think, or at least what they want me to think they think.   My comment is intended to point out an amusing irony--wasted, perhaps, some "atheists" seem to take themselves much too seriously--

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: Goose Gander
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 11:43 PM

Atheism is the absence of a belief in the supernatural, nothing more. Your personal philosophy inclines you in the direction you have described, someone else who happens to be an athiest may have a similar point of view or one diametrically opposed.

"Christianity . . . tells believers that it's ok to conquer and slaughter the non-human animals" (?)

Good grief, Steve.

So we would all be peaceful vegetarians (living on the Crass commune?) if wicked, old Christianity hadn't told us to go eat cheeseburgers.

Actually, the only philosophy - religious or otherwise - that specifically forbids eathing animals is (I believe) Buddhism . . . which is - Presto! - a religion.

Good Night.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: GUEST,Steve Baughman
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 10:08 PM

Oh, and when I say "every life" I mean all sentient life, which includes non-human animals. Atheism allows them to be important too, unlike Christianity which tells believers that it's ok to conquer and slaughter the non-human animals.

Very sad.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: GUEST,Steve Baughman
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 10:00 PM

"There is nothing about "atheism" that makes people compassionate--so how you'll manage that is beyond me--and, sad to say, some people get really nasty when they're drunk, so that's no help either." Ted.

Um . . . some people get really nasty when they get religion.

But Ted, I fear you are not well read in this area. As atheists, we believe that we have one life here, that suffering serves no grander purpose, and that injustice will never be rectified in the hereafter. Atheism therefore inclines us more towards compassion for sufferers than does a religion that believes 1) God is in control 2) suffering serves the cause of soul building 3) injustice will be rectified in the end, 4) God punished the dirty bastards and he would only have done so if they had deserved it, 5) blah blah blah, [enter favorite theodicy theory.]

For me, an atheist, every lost life is a permanent loss of staggering proportions. For the Christian or Moslems it's AT WORST a temporary setback, and it may even be a good thing if God willed it.

FURTHERMORE, Atheism encourages us to see our fellow creatures as the frail, suffering-prone creatures that they are, and to have sympathy for even the worst of them. No matter how badly I dislike some son of a bitch, I feel sympathy for him because I know that he will either die young, or he will grow old and experience the intense grief of watching loved ones die, not to mention the grief of arthritis, hearing loss, blindness, impotence, loss of mental acuity, increased vulnerability to disease, loss of bladder control, loss of mobility, prostate cancer, painful urination, halitosis, sometimes really BAD halitosis, etc etc etc etc etc.

(I'll bet good money that if George Bush were a compassionate atheist, rather than a compassionate Christian, he'd have thought harder about starting all them wars. I sure would have. And so would all my favorite atheists. Because, after all, for us death is final. For y'all it ain't.)

So, Ted, I must respectfully request that you think this one over. And, please note, I'm saying Atheism naturally INCLINES us towards compassion, not that it compels us towards it.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: M.Ted
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 06:07 PM

"How about no Koran and we're all compassionate atheists working for a better world, and only drunk some of the time, (and never when we're driving)? Sounds way better to me--"

There is nothing about "atheism" that makes people compassionate--so how you'll manage that is beyond me--and, sad to say, some people get really nasty when they're drunk, so that's no help either. And the whole idea of "atheism" is really a bit dodgy--

"Atheism" relates to one thing only, and that is the existance of God-- so why define yourself in terms of something doesn't exist? It's an oxymoron.

Subject: RE: Folklore: Amazing Grace. Should We Be Singing it??
From: GUEST,tda
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 04:58 PM

I'd suggest reading both the Quran and a good history of Arabia around Muhamad's time. The teachings of Islam were, and are, very compassionate.

Please show me an example where atheism made a man better. Were they good because they were atheists, or perhaps they were good people who just happened to be atheists.
Nobody is claimning that religion equals instantaneous goodness. If a person follows what he believes, it improves him. The abolitionists are a good case in point.

What I meant by refering to choclate, was that if we refuse to change even something small, that doesn't hurt us much in the grand scheme of things, it's a bit rich to go criticisng others, especially when they lived in a different time, with a different outlook.