My Blog

If Variety is the Spice of Life. . .

Wizzard — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:14:34 GMT

So much has been happening lately that I feel the time has come for a summing up, a kind of trial balance on the books of Life, the Universe and Everything. There is no final balance, of course, while we still live and there are those who believe even death is not the final answer. I believe that too, but I have no answers, only questions can help in the face of the great mysteries. Nevertheless, in the course of a long, often stressful life, there are certain thngs I have come to realize that I would like to share with you. And since variety is called "the spice of life" I choose to label these. . . THE TEN CONDIMENTS (because commandments are for fascists. . . gnostics are all about flavor) 1. It is a serious mistake to start *believing* your own bullshit. 2. It can result in great and wonderful accomplishments to start trying to *live up to* your own bullshit. 3. I do not exist; I am a figment of my own imagination. 4. Nothing is real. Everything is permitted. 5. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. 6. Love is the law, love under will 7. Every man and every woman is a star. 8. Thou hast no right but to do thy will. 9. God is a crazy woman. 10. Hail Eris! All hail Discordia! These are the ultimate secrets of the universe, and life and everything else as well. They will repay careful study. With love under will, Bob, Adastra, The Wizzard of Jacksonville

Happy Birthday to me!

Wizzard — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:29:44 GMT

Well, actually it was yesterday that I turned 65 at last, but I protest that I had little or no time to mention it in this venue. And then, it smacks of self-congratulation, which should occur only in private if one is not to become an embarassment to oneself. But this information is relevant to a description of the strange and wonderful things that have been happening in my world lately. It seems almost as though the universe has been showering gifts on me for the past several days. First, the hour-long, professional massage from a massage therapist who offered it free of charge has relieved the chronic low-back pain that has plagued me of late. Then there is the fact that lately it seems I don't even have to express a wish or perform a ritual to get what I really want. Example: On Tuesday, I asked the universe for a source of income that would present itself without my having to look for it, that would cost little or nothing to begin, that would offer enough income to help me support myself without taking time from my current drive to involve myself in political activism, that would (most importantly) be in a field I like, know something about. am good at and can succeed with. The very next day, on my birthday, I received an email that developed into an opportunity to engage in a rather strange new activity that meets all of those requirements. It's not settled yet, whether I will have the opportunity offered, but the fact that it appears to be exactly what I want and asked for and that it appeared so quickly in apparent response has me hopeful that this will be the answer to my request. There was another matter that was so far out there that I didn't even bother asking for it, so apparently impossible that I won't even describe it since I don't want to appear insane. I was merely telling a wild story to a friend about reported events from nearly three hundred years ago that suggested some really unbelievable possibilites unrecognized by modern thought. The next day, on Monday, I received an email that offered me the chance to explore these impossibilities from a man who claims to have mastered them. His offer was not free, but the price is so low that I see no trouble in meeting it. This has all the earmarks of being a scam of some kind: I can only say that what is being offered is so wonderful that I can't resist wanting to pursue it. It will cost me no more than $30.00, which I can afford and even if it is nonsense, I expect it to be entertaining nonsense at least. If it is actual, it will be one of the greatest boons alchemy can offer. I'll let you know how it goes. But on a smaller scale, there was the incident from Tuesday night, or rather Wednesday morning. I had gone to a 24 hour restaurant in the neighborhood to drink coffee and read. I had been there only a short time, when I heard a waitress telling another customer, "Yes, somebody brought the balloon in for so-and-so, but she lost hold of it and it's been bobbing up there on the ceiling all evening." I didn't remember having seen a balloon when I came in, so I looked up and there on the ceiling above me was one of those big silvery balloons, saying "Happy Birthday." I glanced at my watch, yep, quarter after 12 midnight, it's now Wednesday and I am 65 today, so thanks for the birthday greeting, however it got there. Want to know how it works, how to have wonderful things happen almost before you ask? Sometimes when you haven't even asked? It's simple, get your own universe. Hey, I said "simple", not "easy." Don't blame me. Funny old thing, Life, innit? With love under will, Bob, Adastra, The Wizzard of Jacksonville

The Death of Constitutional Government

Wizzard — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:10:26 GMT

Forgive me if I indulge in a political rant today, but I fear too little attention is being paid to what is happening to our traditional system of government in these parlous times. Our system of government has served us well for over two hundred years. It is currently under attack by a set of vicious enemies who have no love of freedom and no compunctions over using whatever means they can find to attack civil liberties. In particular, the Constitution of the United States is under attack by the very people who are specifically sworn to defend it. Our President, George W. Bush, "The Shrub", took an Oath of Office at his inauguration, an oath in which he swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Has he kept this oath? Indeed not. I believe it is easily shown that he is in clear violation of his Oath of Office, specifically in respect of the clause quoted above. He himself is perhaps the greatest enemy of the US Constitution this nation has ever seen. The case for impeachment of this felonious president and his accomplices has been made again and again. Yet it is ignored by the very people who are charged with opposing the crimes of a criminal president, the Congress of the United States. The Congresspersons also took Oaths of Office, each and every one of them. In the course of those oaths, they too swore to "preserve, protect and defend" our Constitution against all enemies, "foreign and domestic". Have they done so. Indeed not, they have refused to treat the crimes of the president as anything more than a political issue to be addressed or ignored at the whim of the Congress. In this, I believe they have utterly ignored the clear intent of the framers of the Constitution that the Congress should act as a check on the abuses of the Presidency, that they have a clear duty to fulfill their Oaths of Office by impeaching any president who abuses his power. In failing to do so, they ignore their clear duty to the citizens and violate their own Oaths of Office, becoming accomplices after the fact to the crimes of George W. Bush. And what are these crimes? How certain are we that accusations against Bush are justified and not merely paranoia? The opponents of impeachment constantly claim that no one has yet proven any crimes committed by Bush; they characterize the impeachment issue as a false claim by the President's enemies who cannot prove any of these claims, yet hope to get the nation stirred up over a non-issue so as to interfere with the right and duty of the government to fulfill its responsibilities to the electorate. This argument is nothing but a smoke-screen to disguise the truth from the gullibility of the public at large. The truth is simply that Bush is known to have committed crimes, serious felonies against the Constitution, the public trust and the American system of government. We have no need to prove this; it is already proven by the existence of crimes that the president has admitted publicly, even boasted of in truth. Has our President denied that he has authorized the imprisonment of US citizens in the facility at Guantanamo Bay without trial, without access to legal counsel, without the right of habeas corpus? No, he hasn't. He cannot do so, because it is already a matter of public record. Recently the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that his actions and policies are illegal in this regard. This means that the Shrub is already convicted of illegal actions. Look at the facts here, people. The Constitution tells us that every US citizen is entitled to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures Amendment IV). It also requires that every citizen is entitled to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury (Amendment VI) ; he or she also has the right to be informed of the nature of the charges against him/her and of any evidence supporting those charges (Amenment VI). The detainees at Guantanamo have been denied these rights by order of the President; Bush does not deny this, rather he boasts of it, with the specious claim that these methods help to protect our liberty. Yet some of these detainees are US citizens, whose rights to these protections are specified by the Constitution. For myself, I would think that as self-respecting Americans, we should not deny these rights even to non-citizens, as some have recommended, as it is a common attribute of civilized behavior to be willing to treat others as fairly as we ourselves expect to be treated. Yet at minimum, these rights guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution have clearly been denied to some of those same citizens by order and permission of George W. Bush. Yet he does not trouble himself to deny this fact, he boasts of it instead. He claims that these stern measures are necessary to protect the nation. Tell me, who dares, how does one protect the nation by violating the rights of its citizens? In this instance alone, Bush is clearly in violation of the Constitution and of his own Oath of Office. These offences clearly justify impeachment, as they are clearly criminal; regardless of whatever arguments Bush offers to justify his crimes, they remain crimes nonetheless and therefore forbidden to the president, the head of the executive branch, which is charged with enforcing the laws of the nation, not with breaking and ignoring those laws. How much help would a murderer get from explaining why he thought it was necessary to kill the victim? Does a sincere explanation make him any less a murderer? There are legal defences against a charge of murder, self-defense, insanity, and others Sincere belief in the rightness of murder is not one of those defences. How can Bush believe that having an excuse he thinks reasonable makes it okay for him to break the laws he is sworn to enforce? And this is merely one of the crimes Bush has admitted with flimsy, insufficient excuses in a futile attempt to justify his despotism. There is also his repeated, flagrant violation of the FISA Act, which provides the legal procedures for permitting law enforcement agents to spy on citizens under specific, restricted circumstances. Bush freely admits that he has ignored the guidelines imposed by this law in pursuit, he says, of terrorists. He justifies all of his abuses of power with a claim to "wartime powers" in the "War on Terror". Yet the laws and the international treaties this nation has agreed to take no cognizance of a "war" without a clearly defined enemy nation or coalition. The terrorist movement is transnational; there is no one nation or coalition of nations who are conducting terrorist campaigns against the USA or any of our allies. These organizations are all in the private sector. There may be some justification for declaring war on a nation that shelters terrorists as a national policy, but if we were to declare war on every nation where terrorists are to be found, we would have to declare war on the European Union, since terrorists are known to exist there, though without the permission of the Union or of any of its member states. We would also have to declare war on ourselves. Wait, wait, it appears our president, the Terrorist-in-Chief has already declared war on the USA and its Constitution. The fact is that to speak of a "War on Terror" is a figure of speech, not an actual war. So too for the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Poverty". Such phrases are rhetorical only and have no legal force. Yet the Shrub tosses this rhetoric around as though it provides a legal argument. This is itself illegal, people. It justifies nothing, certainly not the clearly illegal acts and policies of the Bush administration. Ironic is it not that to justify his illegal policies, Shrub offers illegal and invalid excuses. Or should we perhaps call attribute that fact to "consistency" in crime? There is also the fact that Bush has publicly and unilaterally announced that the USA is withdrawing from international treaties we have signed as a nation, even that we are withdrawing from specific clauses of treaties and agreements while intending to honor the remainder of the agreement. Check the Constitution, you wlll find nothing that authorizes the President of the United States to cancel treaties and agreements that have been negotiated by our ambassadors and approved by the Congress. How does Bush justify this usurpation of power by his administration? I think it best to quote the exact words of the Constitution on this point: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything to the contrary in the Constitution or the laws of State to the contrary notwithstanding." --US Constitution, Article VI, para. 2. And that is the entire text of that paragraph, friends and neighbors. There is not one word that gives the President any power to cancel any international treaties whatever, nor any part of such treaties. In fact, the Constitution specifically denies *itself* the power to cancel or alter any such treaties. How likely is it that the Constitution in some way can be said to grant a power to the President that it denies to itself? How dare a President cancel or alter "the supreme law of the land?" George W. Bush stands condemned of criminal malfeasance in office by his own admission, by some of his public acts that are a matter of public record and by the document that he is sworn to preserve, protect and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. How many more crimes has he committed of which we have no more than a suspicion, a rumor, or complete ignorance.? Ironically, it is evident that he himself is the greatest domestic enemy of these United States and its Constitution, as well as its system of government and the laws of the land. He is currently, therefore, under sworn obligation to remove himself from office to protect the Constitution. Shall we wait to see if he will suddenly succumb to an attack of honesty and step down? Say not so, brothers and sisters of the USA, children of liberty. Let us not sit silently watching while our children are sold into slavery to an absolute despotism that will destroy every shred of decency that remains to our troubled nation. For all these offenses, the remedy offered by the Constitution is impeachment and removal from office upon conviction. What excuse has the Congress offered for their failure to impeach? The lack of time to pursue an impeachment. The diffculty of obtaining a conviction. The press of other more urgent problems. These, we have been told, make impeachment a waste of time. A WASTE OF TIME? Defense of our civil rights is a waste of time? And these are the people elected BY US to represent us and to protect OUR INTERESTS. Faithless servants of the public interest and will, all of them (except Kucinich, of course). Citizens, we must insist and continue to insist on impeachment of a felonious president, and vow publicly never again to vote for any representative of the electorate who fails to protect the freedoms of the people whom they claim to represent, but whose interests, liberties, welfare and descendants they have sold down the river. I welcome any suggestions to aid in compiling a list of concerned citizens who will undertake such a commitment and pledge publicly to abstain from voting for proven despots and their accomplices. Let all public officials be reminded that they are first and foremost servants of the public and that they will be held accountable at the polls for how they protect the public interest. Aux armes, citoyens! Formez vos battalions! Marchons! Marchons! With love under will, Spartacus, Adastra, The Wizzard of Jacksonville

The Glamor of Fundamentalism

Wizzard — Sun, 18 May 2008 04:14:37 GMT

Why is it that fundamentalism has such an appeal to the pseudo-Christian hordes? What gives it the allure of simulated piety? How does it manage to fool so many people? These are the questions that we must answer if we are ever to free ourselves from the curse of fundamentalism and the machinations of the Christianoid morons. More to the point, why are the other Christian and Christianoid religious leaders and organizations so reluctant to attack the Fundamentalist heresy? Why are they so muted in their critiques? So hesitant to denounce? What strange spell do the fundamentalists cast that saps the will of more moderate Christians? I believe it is the spell of fanaticism. However we may deplore fanatics, we often shelter a shamefaced admiration for them in our heart of hearts. We have all felt it at times. We know they are wrong on many things, but we have to admit they are committed to what they believe. There we have the weakness of the sensible. We all have to some extent bought into the idea that true faith must of necessity be extreme. Commitment is often hailed as a virtue in our culture; to be moderate is to be lukewarm, not truly fervent. We admire the hardcore, not those who stop to think before they make up their minds. Thus the fanatics steal the moral high ground from the moderates. Yet we know that what the fundamentalists teach is utter nonsense. They insist that the welfare of an unborn fetus takes precedence over the welfare of the woman they would condemn to bear and deliver a child whether willing or not--and this in the face of scriptural texts that clearly indicate this is not how God sees it. God, it is clear from the record of the Bible, considers the welfare of an adult woman of far greater weight than that of any temporary contents of her womb. The Deity, whatever His opinion of a man's sexual preference, considers that man a living human soul, who needs God's love and favor and deserves the love and respect of all God's other children. God considers it a serious error to substitute the State for a more legitimate object of worship and hints that mistaking God for the State is as serious an error as mistaking the State for God. God also seems to deny mankind the joy of exacting vengeance against others for their supposed violation of God's supposed commandments. All these and other great errors are promulgated by the God-crazed lunatics in their ignorance of God, of the Spirit of Holiness and of the Bible which they falsely suppose to be His Holy Word. It seems to me that there is a temptation in fanaticism, the urge to give oneself over entirely to a cause, a holy cause, without scruple or reservation to declare war on evil and immorality. The problem is that when we declare war against evil, we most often conceive that war as being fought against those who, in our opinion, are evil themselves. We forget the adage that God hates the sin, but loves the sinner. When we bring things down to the human level, we find that it translates as God's self-appointed representatives on earth being commissioned by the Holy One HImself to destroy the wicked. And this despite the scripture that tells us, "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord, I will repay." Where does it say that God subcontracts the vengeance out to those who volunteer themselves for the chore? It seems to me that this bespeaks an overweening arrogance on the part of God's "fans" and "supporters". When did God ever tell these people He needs their help to accomplish His vengeance? We have already been told that He postpones that vengeance out of mercy, from compassion for erring humanity. Could the self-appointed executors of Divine Wrath not imitate His mercy rather than urging the immediate execution of the judgment? Do they imagine themselves more righteous than God? There is a zeal for God that is more like a pride in one's own holiness than is healthy for any believer. The emphasis has shifted from worship of that which is higher than ourselves to the elevation of our own egos to Divine status. I don't see how anyone can believe that God looks with favor on such puffed up self-importance, especially since He is notoriously opposed to such ego. Yet far too many decent Christians look at the antics of those whose love of God leads them into hatred of their human brothers and sisters and say, "Well, I don't agree with their views, but at least they are committed to what they believe." Let's resolve to cultivate a zeal for love and wisdom and compassion, not a zeal for wrath and vengeance, vengeance which is not ours to exact in any case. And exactly how is it a recommendation of any kind to be committed to insanity? Shouldn't we question such violence instead of giving a sneaking approval to it by calling it something other than madness? These people need medical treatment, not muted admiration. There is nothing at all admirable about holding a perspective on life based on hatred for our fellow man and violence against the "unworthy" in the name of God. . .more accurately in the name of the defense of God. One of the most bizarre arguments these felons of righteousness offer is that they are required to stand up for God and against anything that stands against God. Yet is God, therefore helpless to look after His own interests in this world that He needs the feeble aid of men? Surely the idea is absurd. Let me offer a different moral principle: Those who commit acts of violence in the name of a God of Love have no right to use that name; the use of God's name will not justify an immoral act. A fanatic who blows up a family-planning clinic is a criminal and a rebel against the will of God. Anyone who murders an obstetrician in the name of defending the lives of the unborn has several screws loose somewhere. A terrorist who crashes a plane into a building in the service of his God is an agent of Hell. Let's be honest with ourselves,people; let's stop telliing ourselves that "After all, his heart is in the right place." NO, IT ISN'T. No one who murders another has his heart in the right place! A murderer is not a model of holy zeal. If you want a model for the love of God, look to Mother Teresa, St Francis of Assisi and Mohandas Ghandi, not to Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Joseph Schimmel, Joseph Ratzinger and all those others who take the name of God in vain to justify murder, avarice, lust, lies and theft. Jesus told us, "The thief comes not but to steal, to kill and to destroy." He told us also, "By their fruits you shall know them." How can the Tree of Everlasting Life bring forth the fruit of death, of hatred, of destruction? Those who profess to be disgusted by "secular humanism" should try to remember that God Himself is a notorious human sympathizer. Those who claim to follow that God would do well to cultivate a bit of human sympathy themselves if they don't want to be left behind standing on the pier when the ship of salvation sails into the west. I will close with another quote from Paul, the subject being the fruit of the spirit, by which we will recognize those filled with the Spirit of God. In Gal. 5:22 & 23 , Paul tells us "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering [patience], gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." Why should we not try to exhibit these qualities and refuse the credit of zeal to those who exhibit the opposite signs? Zeal for God should emulate, not contradict God's nature. Thank you, my brothers and sisters, for your gracious attention to this little rant of mine. God give ye good through all your days. With love under will, Bob, Adastra, The Wizzard of Jacksonville

Political Commentary

Wizzard — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:39:42 GMT

Yesterday, I watched "V for Vendetta" for the third time in less than a year. I plan to watch it again this Wednesday. The reason for this is simple; after watching the movie for the first time last summer, I resolved that I would watch it again each year on the fifth of November, the anniversary of Guy Fawkes's arrest in 1605 on charges of treason. On watching the movie again, Nov. 5, 2007, I decided to do a bit of research on the old Guy and added the dates of Jan. 31, the anniversary of his execution in 1606, and April 13 and 16, the dates of his birth and christening in 1570. For those who don't know the history, Guy Fawkes was rebaptised as a Catholic when he was very young, following the early death of his father and his mother's remarriage to a Catholic husband. When King James VI of Scotland was crowned as James I of England and his Parliament passed laws considered to be biased against Catholics, a group of Catholic noblemen formed a plot to blow up Parliament on the first day of its session, when the King and many prominent Protestant noblemen would be in attendance. They hoped to destroy the Protestant government and put a Catholic princess on the throne. The plot was discovered, Fawkes was arrested on Nov. 5 in the cellars of the Parliament building with many barrels of gunpowder and a set of fuses. He was tried for and convicted of treason against the crown and about three months later executed by hanging. This man became a controversial figure whose arrest on Nov. 5 is still celebrated in England (last I heard) as a holiday with fireworks and bonfires and burnings in effigy. I believe the phrase, "Spare a penny for the guy?", typically heard around this time, began with children soliciting donations for the construction of a Guy Fawkes effigy to be burned on the evening of Nov. 5. The fireworks presumably come from the tale of the gunpowder meant to blow up Parliament. Some consider Fawkes a terrorist, some think of him as a champion of religious freedom; the truth is probably somewhere between the extremes. I tend to think of him as a champion of religious freedom for Catholics anyway and give him credit for being a champion of freedom in any case. He is now a symbol having several different interpretations, depending on who you ask. For those who haven't seen the movie: it is a tale of a man living in the not-too-distant future, in a world where the USA has collapsed as a world power and England has become a fascist dictatorship headed by the "High Chancellor" a Cromwellian despot named Sutler, who rules with an iron hand on the pretext of protecting England against terrorist, foreigners, homosexuals and other such "undesirables". He has adopted the slogans, "Strength through unity, unity through faith," and "England prevails,' reflecting the Christianoid nature of his rule. The phony Christians always seem to love dictators who will outlaw things that the phony Christians don't approve of, like freedom, justice, love, compassion and forgiveness. Into this situation comes a man who has been preparing for decades to foment a revolution that will topple this increasingly savage despot and bring England to a rebirth of freedom. Known only as "V", he is played by the great Hugo Weaving and always wears a Guy Fawkes mask, so his features are never seen. He was horribly wronged by the High Chancellor's government and intends to gain vengeance for these wrongs. His revolution is a strange one, primarily a campaign to awaken the public conscience and consciousness to the crimes of their government. Americans in the age of Bloody Bush, the Torture President. will recognize many of these themes with ease. The movie is based on a graphic novel that was published in England during the administration of Margaret Thatcher to protest the abuses of her government and has been moved up into the future by the movie in order to make it relevant to America in the Bush administration. Natalie Portman, in a break out role, plays Evie Hammond, V's intitially unwilling accomplice and the one person who actually comes to love him, though they have no future as a couple in the brave new world V hopes to make possible. I won't reveal too much of the plot for those who have yet to see the film, except to say that the campaign begins on No. 5, Guy Fawkes Day, with the blowing up of the Old Bailey, an old prison that has become an historic landmark in London; the scene is exciting, exuberant, ecstatic and other words beginning with "e", exhibited to the strains of the "1812 Overture" and enhanced by fireworks mingled with the explosives. There follows his temporary capture of the government television station which he uses to address the public in a style that should appeal to admirers of Ayn Rand as it will suggest John Galt's epic public radio address in "Atlas Shrugged." In this speech, "V" points out the abuses that afflict England and invites all citizens of London to assemble outside Parliament on Nov. 5 of the next year to watch the building go up in flames, smoke and powerful explosions. The rest of the movie covers the progress of his plot over the following year leading up to the climactic confrontation between the terrorist and the government he opposes. From the interviews in the bonus features: "Remember that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter." From the movie dialog: "People should not be afraid of their government; governments should be afraid of their people." "A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having." "There is something terribly wrong with this country." "Remember, remember, the fifth of November, The gunpowder treason and plot. I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason Should ever be forgot." I don't know whether watching a movie will ever do much to bring an end to the wave of tyranny that has drowned this nation in misery for the last seven years or more, but I hope that watching it on a regular basis will remind people of what they have given up when they let career politicians shred our Constitution for their convenience and to swell the coffers of the wealthy and the corporate interests. I hope that making a practice of watching the movie will eventually motivate people to action in defense of their civil liberties. So in that hope, I invite anyone who is interested in the cause of freedom to make a practice of watching "V for Vendetta" at least once a year on Guy Fawkes Day, Nov. 5. For those who lean more to fanaticism like me, the choice is available to watch it on Jan. 31 as well and even on Apr. 13 and16 if you feel so motivated. It's an exciting movie anyway, so it's not like a chore to watch it, and it may inspire someone to direct action, like organizing a march or a demonstration in Washington on Nov. 5 to protest the abuses and injustices of this administration and in future years as a reminder to future governments that the people will hold them to account for their style of government and their loyalty to the ideals of a nation pledged to "liberty and justice for all." Maybe we in the USA should adopt Guy Fawkes Day from the British to serve as a patriotic reminder every year (and around the time for national elections at that) that freedom is a value worth defending and that it is easy to let it slip away in return for promises of protection offered by those who do not have the best interests of the nation in mind. What do you say, folks? "Penny for the guy?" With love under will, Spartacus, The Wizzard of Jacksonville

The Texts Unraveled

Wizzard — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 02:31:32 GMT

it has been my very great pleasure over the past three days to read an excellent book on New Testament studies recommended by a good online friend. I mean the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman. This invaluable book is a revelation to those of us who indulge ourselves in studying and trying to understand the Judeo-Christian scriptures. I was particularly impressed by Ehrman's presentation of how the books of the New Testament were transmitted in the first few centuries of the Common Era. He points out that copies of individual texts seem to have been amateur productions, copied by wealthy Christians who hosted churches in their houses. They had the wealth to be well-educated, and therefore literate. They also had enough leisure time to devote to projects promoting the good of the churches. Thus they were the obvious choices to make copies of the holy books for others to read or have read to them. Unfortunately, few if any of them were trained scribes. Their copies show a great many errors in the process of copying, to say nothing of changes introduced to support various doctrinal positions. It is the unfortunate fact that the further we go back in time to look at the very oldest manuscripts available, the less reliable those manuscripts become. This is ironic in view of the great many students who truly believe there is an original text, pure and accurate, that we can look back to and try to discover. It doesn't exist. As soon as the texts were written and left the author's hand to be copied by others, the introduction of errors began. There simply is no pure and ancient version to find. Further, Dr. Ehrman's conclusions match what we think we know about the church in the first few centuries C.E. Later on, the task was more often given over to professional scribes or monks who were at least trained as scribes even though they were not paid for their work. At this point the copies became much more accurate. Of course there were still occasional mistakes in the copying, no humans are perfect--the eyes grow dim and the hand and mind tire as the hours pile up. Still, the later manuscripts are much more accurate copies than the early ones. The difficulty remains that the later copies were copied from the earlier ones, so the mistakes introduced by the earlier copyists are simply copied accurately in the newer manuscripts, but remain as mistaken as ever, merely more ingrained in the manuscript tradition. There is no way to be really sure that any single word of the text is a word that was written by the original author. The best we can do is to make educated guesses. As an example, remember the story of the woman taken in adultery in the Gospel According to John, the one of whom Jesus said, "Let him who is without sin first cast a stone at her." I have often seen the comment on this passage that the scholars of the texts believe this story is not part of John's original text, but is a later additon that comes from an authentic story out of the oral tradition. This seems contradictory; the story was not in the original text, but is still authentic? How does that work? Dr. Ehrman explains in detail. He points out that there are a number of very early manuscripts of this gospel that do not include the story at all. When it first begins to appear, it is copied as a marginal note to the main text, scrunched over at the side of the page. It even appears at different places in different manuscripts as though the scribes had not yet decided exactly which passage they were annotating. In one case it is even included as a marginal note to the Gospel According to Luke rather than John. With this level of detail it becomes easy to see how the experts arrived at their opinion; even if we choose not to agree with them we can understand their thinking on exactly how this passage became part of the text. This is the kind of book that makes the study of the Bible much more enjoyable. It aids our understanding of the often mysterious processes by which alterations are introduced into the scriptures and become accepted by the unwary. I confess it took me years of study to arrive at some of the conclusions Ehrman presents in his study and some of them I would never have figured out on my own without the aid of the impressive research Bart Ehrman has put in for us. I will do my best to find and read all of his other books, in fact, I have another three in hand right now and am enjoying the study of them greatly. I must add that Dr. Ehrman chairs the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and is the author of many excellent books on these subjects. His professional website may be found at: http://www.bartdehrman.com/ Thanks again, Krampus. With love under will, Bob, Adastra, The Wizzard of Jacksonville

More on the Abortion Thingy

Wizzard — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:10:20 GMT

Honored Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I wish to present in evidence a quote from the 20th chapter of Exodus, vv. 22-25: "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." These verses suffer a rather strange treatment at the hands of the Christianoid exegetes. They tell us that the words "so that her fruit depart from her" do not refer to a miscarriage as most interpreters agree, but refer simply to a premature delivery of a healthy infant. Does this make sense? Apparently, the fetus people think it does, since this is their standard line on these verses. Yet there is matter here for serious misgivings over this line of thought. First of all, if the infant is born, but without mischief, then we have a perfectly healthy mother and child, so the fetus must surely have been near-term, since premature infant care was not very advanced three thousand years ago or more, so if natural birth was not very near, the infant would have been stillborn, or died very quickly. Thus there could hardly have been many such cases that resulted in a healthy infant, so why was the law considered necessary? Further, it is not clear to whom the "mischief" is believed to have fallen, but if both mother and babe are alive and well, why is there a law at all? Why is there a fine to be paid if no one was actually hurt by this mishap? Why should the accused not rather have deserved a fee for his obstetric services? I trust you can see that it just doesn't work. And yet, if the fetus does not survive, to whom is the mischief supposed to have occurred? Surely only the mother. Who else is involved in the incident? The man or men who "strive?" Hardly, they are the ones required to pay a fine. This reads like some of our modern laws that cover the appropriate punishment if injuries or deaths occur in the progress of a felony. Nor is the fine to be paid because of emotional trauma to the mother. The fine goes to the father as a compensation presumably for having been denied the benefit of a son or daughter. Of course, if no mischief followed, he and his wife may try again (with a better result we pray). But if mischief follows (to the mother as we have seen above), then the penalty is to be the same as that for injury to another human being, life for life, etc. copied from the code of Babylonian Hammurabi. Thus the pretense that this passage does not refer to the miscarriage of a fetus caused by the violence of a man or men rests on no foundation whatever. To believe that, we would have to stretch the words of the text to a meaning that is directly contradictory to the most natural understanding of their sense. This serves to demonstrate the lengths to which Christianoid fanatics will go to support their absurd positions and serves clearly to show how little true respect they have for their cherished Bible, if they must so twist and distort it to justify nonsense. So if the fetus is supposed to be an individual independent human being even in the womb with all the rights to life and liberty, why is there no demand that the culprit suffer the penalty for murder? Paying a fine is a far cry from "life for life." The Christianoids are forced to explain this mystery away by skewed interpretation of the words. This passage also shows quite clearly that God values the life and safety of an adult woman far more highly than he values the life and safety of any temporary contents of her womb. How do these pious creatures presume to think themselves more righteous than God? They err greatly in that they turn the truth of God into a lie and worship the creature more than the Creator. They may find their judgment in the first chapter of Paul's epistle to the Romans, as we have seen lately has befallen many ministers and politicians among these blasphemers. Can anyone smell the irony? With love under will, Bob, Adastra, The Wizzard of Jacksonville

The Abortion Debate

Wizzard — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:44:36 GMT

We've all heard the strident claims from the anti-choice folks, the "fetus people" as one writer has called them. They constantly repeat their claim, "Abortion is murder; the Bible says so." But is this claim true? We might guess from the almost frantic repetitions of this phrase from the anti-abortion faction that their desperation hides a claim that rests on shaky ground. In fact, a careful look at the texts reveals that the word "abortion" does not occur anywhere in the text of the Bible at all. Any thinking human might question how the Bible can say,"Abortion is murder" without using the word "abortion" at least once somewhere. When confronted with a demand for scriptural support, the fetus people commonly refer to the 6th commandment of the ten, "Thou shalt not kill." (Ex. 20:13, Deut. 5:17). Well, that seems clear enough, we are not supposed to kill. But wait, surely there is a bit of confusion here. Elsewhere God allows or even commands killing. Animals are to be killed in sacrifice or for food, enemies are to be killed in warfare, crops are to be killed at harvest, criminals are sometimes to be killed (executed). What is this? Can't God make up His mind? Looking at the word "kill" in Hebrew, we find it is "ratsach". This is the word used in both places where the Commandment is found, There are a number of other words used for kill in other verses, but this is the word actually used in the Commandment. Modern research holds that the precise meaning is "murder", involving illegal, premeditated murder. Maybe this is where they get the idea that the Bible calls abortion murder. Yet this assumption is ludicrous. Once again, there is no mention of abortion anywhere in the Bible. The truth is the Christianoids have simply assumed that abortion is a form of murder, but have no text on which to base that assumption. They assume this on the basis of their own sentimental feelings for precious, widdle babie-wabies, showing they haven't thought much about human nature or the human condition. Anyone who has ever had to deal with a live baby, feeding it, changing it, cleaning up its vomit, etc. will hardly think of a baby as "cute" or "precious". A baby is a heavy responsibility, not to be taken lightly. True many mothers consider their babes a great blessing, but few would fall for the immaculately clean and pure theory of infanthood. Getting up at 3 AM to change diapers will soon disillusion even the most fond mother that her baby is a perfect, flawless, perfectly civilized human being; it is a great part of the parents responsibility that their children must be trained in civilized behavior. The sugar-coated theory of infancy is a fraud, just ask any parent on a particularly difficult day. The Commandment tells us not to murder, but fails to provide a clear definition of what is or is not murder. Apparently, it was thought that the question was obvious, or perhaps that it should be left up to the civil authorities. So what is murder not? Self-defense is obviously not murder. Accidentally causing the death of someone else is not murder, today we call it manslaughter or vehicular homicide. The penalties for such crimes are not so severe as those for murder, just as they were not in Biblical times. Killing an enemy soldier in combat is not murder--it is often considered admirable. Let's take a few hypotheticals. If you fire a pistol six times into a human being, deliberately and with malice aforethought, is that murder, always and without question? No, it isn't, not necessarily. If the person you shot was already dead, then you have not committed murder. You could be charged with a lesser crime, desecration of a corpse or discharging a weapon within the city limits or some such, but you have not committed murder. You cannot murder someone already dead; surely that is clear. What if you take the same pistol and empty it into a department store mannequin? Is that murder? No, a mannequin is not human, nor alive, despite its mimicking of human form. So having a human form is not enough to make a case for murder either. So much for the passionate, sentimental display of pictures of fetuses and talk about how human they look already and about the "miracle of birth." Such arguments are designed to play upon the sentimentality of the public, with the unstated assumption that the birth of a child is always cause for rejoicing and a blessing from God. This is not an argument; it is an emotional appeal. Such considerations if thought through carefully, will lead to the realization that the real question in the debate should be not whether abortion is murder, but when human life begins. In this, the Christianoids follow the Catholic Church as they do in so many other positions, usually without noticing it. The Roman Catholics have held for centuries that human life begins at conception, though with no evidence offered. This dogma arose during the Middle Ages, when children were indeed a blessing; a new baby meant another hand to work the farm in a few years, an heir to train in the family trade, and most important of all to the church and the state, another taxpayer, another butt in the pew to chip into the collection plate. There was really no sentimentality in this, merely ordinary human self-interest. I cannot vouch for this of my own knowledge, but I have read that all nations of the ancient Middle East had laws prohibiting abortion with the single exception of the Jews. Even today, there is no prohibition on abortion in any of the main branches of Judaism; such extreme views are limited to a few very small, very close-minded sects. So what does the Bible say about when human life begins, "personhood" in the popular expression among modern Jews? When does a baby become a separate human being with all rights accruing to that status? The clearest statement of the Biblical position is found in Gen. 2:7, "And the Lord God formed [the] man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and [the] man became a living soul [a living breath]." Please note that there are two actions described here, the first being the forming of [the body of the] man. The verb is "yatsar" in Hebrew, meaning to shape as the potter shapes a pot on the wheel. Then the giving of the breath of life follows. And only then does the verse say that the man became a living soul {nephesh chai in Hebrew, literally a living breath.]. The word, "nephesh," always translated as "soul," is derived from a word for "breath." This indicates as clearly as anyone could wish that the breath of life is the determining factor, merely having a human form is not enough, since that would mean that destroying a department store mannequin would be murder, a truly absurd conclusion. Against this conclusion, the Christianoids offer a raft of verses to support their beliefs, but so far none of these proves their claims. One of their favorites is a verse in Jer. 1:5, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee. . ." There you have it, and on this basis, the Christianoids love to bleat, "God knows the child even in the womb, that proves that the unborn child is a full person already." "Bullshit," I reply. The verse in question makes no reference to the time the child is being formed, it specifically speaks of a time before that formation. "Before I formed thee in the belly. . ." That proves that God knows the child before it is formed in the womb. The context has nothing to do with when human life begins, but is a statement about God's foreknowledge. And it is not even a general statement about all hunan fetuses, since God is speaking here to Jeremiah specifically as shown in the second part of the same verse, ". . .; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." The point to be made here is that only by completely dropping the context can the fetus people turn this into a statement about when personhood begins; of course, they hope that you won't check on this. And if you do check, please take note of the fact that the word for "formed" in this verse is also "yatsar" and that in Gen. 2:7, this forming was not enough to make the man a living soul. The breath of life was still necessary. It seems clear that in God's opinion, human life as a separate person begins at birth when the infant begins breathing on its own. The whole thrust of the Christianoid furor on this point is their attempt to convince the world that God must agree with their opinions. This is the foundation for their belief that it is perfectly acceptable, even commendable to murder a doctor who performs abortions or to bomb family planning centers. They actually believe that God has given them a license to violate the 6th commandment under the pretense of defending it. I know they truly believe that they are God's children, HIs special favorites, and that every one of their opinions is endorsed by God Himself, yet where is their evidence for this when it is obvious that they will insist on their own opinions even in the face of clear scripture? The very scripture they claim to revere, yet refuse to learn and follow. Jesus of Nazareth spoke in disparaging terms of these people in Matt. 15: 8,9, in which he quotes from Isaiah, saying, "This people draweth nigh to me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips;but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Pretty strong words there, yet they perfectly describe God's greatest fans in this modern age. They do not even attempt to follow what God has to say; they don't even try to find out what it is. They merely assume that because they are "saved", or more accurately think they are saved, that all their opinions on every subject come direct from God. And Jesus tells us that their worship is vain. They will never learn and their ignorance makes them dangerous to their neighbors. Now does this mean that abortion is always the preferred option? Of course not, many women want to have children and the idea that they are forbidden to give birth would be cruel and absurd. Yet to listen to the fanatics, we would think that the availability of abortion somehow forces women to choose it in every case. If that were true, humanity would have vanished into extinction centuries ago, since abortion has been available for several thousand years. Is abortion always perfectly innocent? Probably not, there are good reasons for any woman to have an abortion, pregnancy from rape is one, a pregnancy that endangers her health is another, inablility to provide for a child because of grinding poverty, etc. These are all valid reasons to consider abortion. Each case is unique and it seems to me that each woman should be permitted to decide for herself whether she wants to have a child or whether she is able to have a child. Certainly, it is probably not a good idea to decide the question on the spur of the moment, on a whim or merely because of personal distaste for having one's life inconvenienced, yet who is in a better position to judge the worthiness of any woman's reasons than she herself? That is why the availability of abortion must be a fundamental right of any woman who is pregnant, whether by force, by fraud or by simple mistake. And no amount of sloppy Bible study will change that fact. With love under will, Adastra, The Wizzard of Jacksonville

Commercial Announcement

Wizzard — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:48:13 GMT

In the interest of trying to make a living with something I am actually good at, I have applied and been accepted as an expert Tarot reader at Kasamba, where those who want a reading may find readers who will read for and advise them. There are currently two options available. One is to contact the reader one-on-one via live chat with full interaction in the chat format. The other is by email in which the querent sends an email with the question or issue and any details that might be relevant; the reader then does the reading at home and replies in by email; for this option, the querent must have an email address on the Kasamba site, which is available at no charge. My own fees starting out have been set at $0.75/minute for live chat and $30.00 flat fee for an email consultation. These may change as I have a chance to decide the most effective pricing policy. They reflect the fees I was charging in my reading practice. I have decided that the online venue is the one to pursue as my most convenient option at present. I welcome anyone who is in need of advice or counselling via the Tarot to contact me at: http://www.kasamba.com/adastra With love, Bob, Adastra, The Wizzard of Jacksonville

The Purpose of the Bible

Wizzard — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:02:50 GMT

I have been coming to a rather idiosyncratic view of the Bible lately. For years, I have been examining the way people quote the book out of context and with misinterpretations, often based on mistranslations. Now, I see it is true--you can "prove" anything you want from the Bible. The books are so diffuse and diverse that one can find a verse, a parable or an incident that seems to justify any kind of behavior or beliefs you want to justify. It is an entirely different matter to read with attention and to think carefully about the cultural, linguistic, historical, psychological, mythological, ritual, anthropological and other contexts in which any given passage was written. It is probably too much for most readers to keep in mind. It is probably too much for any human mind to hold all at once. I remember an amusing anecdote about a man who made it a daily practice to hold a Bible upright on its spine, close his eyes and open the book at random. When he opened his eyes, he would note the first verse that met his glance and take this as his guidance for the day. This is a practice known as "bibliomancy" and is rightly condemned as superstitious nonsense. One morning this man let his Bible fall open as usual and glanced at the page, the words he saw read, "And Judas went out and hanged himself." It seemed to him that this provided vey little in the way of guidance, so he decided to try again. This time, he got, "Go thou and do likewise." Still worse. Again he consulted his imagined oracle; the third time, he got, "That which thou doest, see thou do it quickly." I wonder if he followed this advice. The story doesn't tell us. I have begun to arrive at the conclusion that God gave us the Bible (if He did, either literally or figuratively) to test us and see who and what we are--and more, to give us the chance to see these for ourselves. From this perspective, the Bible is like a divine Rohrschach test. We look into it, report what we find there and in what we report, we show clearly who we are at the deepest level. Scripture is not meant to reveal God to man so much as to reveal man to himself. Or so I begin to believe. One verse says that "the word of God is quick (alive) and powerful (dynamic), and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and a discerner (kritikos, critic) of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Heb. 4:12) This means that the scripture critiques us, shows us who we are by the meaning we find in it and the lessons we draw from it. Some look into the book and find props to their egos, reasons to hate, loathe, detest and despise others and all the inspirations that give us an Adolf Hitler or a George Bush. Some see other inspirations, the kind that give us a Gautama, a Basho, an Albert Schweitzer or a Martin Luther King. Why not try to find the inspirations that lift us up, rather than those that tear others down? "By their fruits, ye shall know them"? Yes, but also by the understanding they take from the scriptures they claim to follow. This works as well with Shakespeare, Mark Twain or Rabelais as with the Bible, the Dhamapada, the Quran or the Book of Mormon. The effect can be found even in the "pure entertainment" that is Doyle's tales of Sherlock Holmes. Each great book, whether enshrined as a holy text or disregarded as mere amusement, has something profound and worthy to tell us about ourselves, or something shallow and demeaning. Which message the reader finds tells us something about who the reader is. And in time, perhaps we can take something truly valuable from this mirror of the soul; if we don't like what we see of ourselves in there, we can repent (literally "metanoia," "afterthought"") and look for the things that we find more uplifting and less condemnatory. This is a good thing, or so it seems to me. And like the man who consulted the Bible for daily guidance, I once had a bit of guidance directly from the pages of scripture, though it came to me, perhaps not randomly, but certainly not of my own choosing. One night as I lay down to sleep, I was tormented by questions about my life and faith and understanding. I began to wonder if I knew what I was doing or merely making a series of disastrous mistakes. I poured all this out to Abba in prayer, desperate for some guidance as to whether God still heard me and still cared for me. I drifted off to sleep in great anguish of mind and heart. I woke the next morning with a mental voice ringing in my head, almost as though I heard someone speaking audibly. All that it said was a chapter and verse in the Psalms, not the words of the verse, just the number of the Psalm and the number of the verse. I picked up my Bible and looked up the reference before I could forget it. I don't remember which Psalm it was; it was not one that I remembered particularly, but I found there what seemed to be a very apt and comforting answer to the questions that plagued me the night before. And yes, I still think bibliomancy is superstitious nonsense, though I will make allowance for those times when we receive clear instruction to read a particular passage. The most important lessons of the Bible or any other great literature are those that help us see ourselves for who we are and show us the way to become better, more loving, more honest, more giving, and all those other "mores" that we so desperately seek. This may be its genuine purpose. May God bless to our understanding the reading of all His words and of our own. With love, Bob, aka Adastra, The Wizzard of Jacksonville reply to this post

The Myth of Hell

Wizzard — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:33:07 GMT

Let's be clear about this, the Christianoid dogma of Hell is a complete lie. There is zero support for the dogma in their own scriptures and the lie is maintained only by a thorough-going campaign of mistranslation, misinterpretation and outright forgery by people who really should know better. In the Christianoid Bible (KJV) we find the word "hell" is used (uncapitalized) a fair number of times, so it appears the idea of hell has considerable support in the texts. However, when we look carefully at each occurence of the word in English, we find a total of three words in the original language that the KJV translators rendered into English as "hell." In this, they were merely following the traditional teaching, though they should have known better if they were competent enough to be translators to begin with. The first of these words is from Hebrew. It is "sheol" and it appears a total of 65 times in the Hebrew scriptures. 31 of these times it is translated as "hell", another 31 times (exactly the same number) it is given as "the grave". The remaining three times, it becomes "the pit." Now if it is the same word, why should it be given this differential treatment in translation? If we look at each occurence of the word in English, a pattern begins to emerge. That same word is "hell" whenever what is said in the context could be consistent with the dogma of Hell. But "sheol" occurs a number of times in contexts that cannot possibly be taken to refer to the standard dogma. I will not try to cover all 65 uses of "sheol" in the text since no one would want to read through all 65 explanations, but I have studied each of these myself and will vouch for what I say. Anyone who is not convinced is welcome to do their own detailed word study. I am confident that I need not worry that anyone will find contrary to my own conclusions. The scene in Genesis where Jacob (aka Israel) is distraught over the trouble his sons are causing him quotes him as telling them, "You will bring down my grey hairs with sorrow to the grave (sheol)." Now we might imagine anyone would be sorrowful to think of going to hell, but why would Israel expect to go to eternal torment after his death? To begin with, the Jews made no mention of any life after death; the resurrection was the hope of Israel. They taught that after death, the body lay under the earth, without breath, thought or feeling until God raised the corpses and restored them to life on a glorified earth at the end of history. There was no going to heaven or to any other such supernatural place after death; the dead just waited in their graves until called to rise. And it would have been considered a bit disrespectful for his descendants to suggest that he would be condemned to a place of eternal torment reserved for incorrigible sinners. So why would the scribe who recorded the tale write it to suggest that such would be the case? A second use is when David, near his death, advises his son and heir, Solomon, as to how he should conduct the affairs of Israel when he becomes king. He advises Solomon that he should not neglect dealing with a certain man who is an enemy of David and his house. David tells his son, "Do not let his hoar head go down to the grave (sheol) in peace." This is odd. Who could speak of anyone going to Hell in peace? There can be no peace for anyone sent to Hell according to the conventional dogma. Nor would there be any reason to speak of anyone on their way to Hell experiencing peace at the prospect of unending agony. King David's advice makes no sense if we translate "sheol" as "hell". So the KJ V translators gave the word its proper meaning, as they did in every place the context made reference to conditions or expectations that could not possibly be true of Hell. Where they could get away with it, they used this inaccurate translation of "hell" to bolster the approved doctrine. When they were unsure, they used the English "the pit" which could be understood either way. If it were not for such Dirty Tricks in Translation, the dogma would have no support whatever. But stay tuned, I will deal with the origin of the English word farther along. The first of the Greek words that are rendered as "hell" is "hades". This should be a familiar word to many students. It is the name of the place where the dead were supposed to go in Greek myth. It was also the name of the Greek god who ruled the land of the dead. Hades (the place) included places of eternal rest and perpetual delight and a place of eternal punishment, though it was reserved for the very greatest sinners, those who had blasphemed the gods, the myths mention only a few and these were clearly regarded as exceptions. Now, I ask you, does it make any sense to think that the God of Israel would endorse a belief in Greek myths? or that he would appear to recommend making sacrifices to Greek deities? Surely not. Any number of other commandments he gives in the law he conveyed to Moses would surely make this claim ridiculous. Yet that is exactly what the word "hades' seems to suggest if we take it literally. How did such a Greek idea find its way into the New Testament? Well, the manuscripts we have are all in Greek to begin with. It is unclear whether they were translated into Greek very early or were all written in Greek to begin with, but the ones we have are in Greek. None are in Aramaic, the common language of the Middle East at that time. Why would the Greeks write or translate using a word from Greek myth? Well, it seems probable that they used the word simply because it was a familar one used to refer to the condition of the dead. It seems unlikely that they necessarily meant it in a "literal" sense as claimed by the Christianoids, and if they did mean it "literally" it would horrify Christianoid dogmatists with the suggestion that their god would call on his people to worship other gods. In addition, the truly literal meaning would hardly lend strength to the dogmatic belief. The word "hades" literally means "unseen." This makes perfect sense. The deceased, whether buried in the earth or cremated on a funeral pyre as was the Greek custom, were certainly unseen. And would remain unseen unless in dreams or memories, until they were to wake at the end of the story of man and his gods. Nothing in there about unending torture, is there? Another opinion holds that "hades" is derived from an expression meaning "the all-receiving" which is certainly appropriate to the grave which eventually welcomes all of us, though Christianoid apologists pretend that there is a separate section of Hell reserved for those who are not sentenced to torment, but merely kept in prison until Christ comes to free them. Whatever! If they are not guilty enough to be consigned to torture for all of eternity, why are they in prison to begin with? The idea has more in common with the Jewish belief in which the dead lie in the earth, inert until the distant day when the resurrection will come with angelic trumpets sounding the great reveille. And the other Greek word we must consider is "gehenna", a rather odd word in Greek--because it isn't Greek at all. Gehenna is a Greek rendering of the Aramaic "geh hinnom" which means literally "the valley of Hinnom," sometimes also known as "the valley of the sons of Hinnom." This is the only word that comes even close to meanng what the Christianoids mean by it. The valley of Hinnom was an actual place--not deep under ground or out in some dimly intuited spiritual location with no physical representation. It was an actual valley, an element of the physical landscape of Earth. And it was conveniently situated to serve as a metaphor. This valley, in the first centurey C.E was situated on the south side of Jerusalem, just outside the city walls. It was the place where the residents of the city took their garbage out to burn it. So there was certainly fire, though probably not brimstone, an old word for sulfur from O. E. "brinstone" or "burning stone", often found in the vicinity of volcanos, but seldom in garbage pits. "Where the worm dieth not and their fire is unquenched." Yes it is usual to find maggots in a garbage pit, usually in sufficient numbers that they might seem to be undying, and the fires also seem to burn constantly. But this interpretation puts God in the bizarre position of saying, "Sinners repent, or you will be dumped into the South Jerusalem landfill." Surely an absurd idea if we take it literally. Beside which, the valley would soon be full and would be overflowing to an unwieldy mess long before every sinner in the history of the world could be cast there. But there's another implication possible from the mention of Gehenna. Once long ago, there was a place located in that valley and this particular spot was known as "Tophet," another of the many synonyms for "hell." This was the site of an old shrine to Moloch, a pagan god who was rumored to demand human sacrifices, though this rumor has been called into question by modern historians and archaeologists who have found evidence to the contrary. Could it be that the reference to gehenna was a sly hint by God that he would take those who displeased him and sacrifice them to Moloch. Once again, what Christianoid could possibly contemplate this suggestion without horror? Yet if we try to interpret literally without the use of common sense, we must arrive at that conclusion or one equally repulsive. BTW, an old online acquaintance who lived in Jerusalem once told me that today the valley of Hinnom is within the city of Jerusalem and is the site of the annual Israeli film festival. So it might be a great place to visit if you like foreign films. I'm surprised some enterprising Palestinian hasn't set up conducted tours for the sightseers who visit Jerusalem. He could guide the tour, hand out brochures, explain the significance of the Valley of Hinnom and sell T-shirts with a motto that reads, "HELL? Been there, done that." Or maybe someone has thought of this already and I just haven't heard of it. Finally, there is one other Greek word to consider, even though it is not actually translated as "hell." The word is "tartaroo" and it refers indirectly to hell. The word is a verb meaning "to cast into Tartarus." It is used by Peter to speak of Christ descending to "hell" in order to preach to the spirits in prison. The Greek tells us that he went to preach to the spirits who were cast into Tartarus. You remember Tartarus, don't you. It's the portion of the Greek Hades where mankind's greatest sinners were kept and punished for eternity. I'm sure you remember Tantalus, from whose name we get the word "tantalize". He was placed in a pool of clear, cool water with branches just above him laden with luscious fruit. Yet when he reached up for the fruit, the branches lifted out of his reach and when he bent his head to drink, the water fled from his lips. So Tantalus was left starving and dehydrated for all of eternity with food and drink close at hand and forever out of reach. Bummer! But Christ is said to have preached to the spirits in prison, not to the souls in prison. The meaning is a bit doubtful, but suggests we are talking about evil spirits (devils) rather than the souls of departed humans. So we find in all of these Greek and Hebrew words not one that clearly suggests a fiery place of eternal agony for sinners. Only when the translators cover up their errors by translating words in ways that don't fit the literal meaning or any reasonable meaning can they get away with the monstrous lie that they have fabricated to frighten people into listening to their scam. It's all about butts in the pews and money in the collection plates every Sunday, folks. All the rest is window dressing to distract the gullible from asking too many questions. And they get away with it only so long as nobody checks the text. This is why the catholic church discouraged people from reading the book for themselves for hundreds of years. They were afraid the masses would begin to ask uncomfortable questions. Finally, we come to the English word, "hell". This seems to derive from the name of the Norse goddess of the realm of death, "Hel", both her name and the name of the land she ruled. The Hel of the old Vikings and their forebears was a horrid, nasty place indeed. I will not even speak of the torments of the sinners in Hel, since I don't want to induce vomiting. But the name is innocuous enough. The word from which Hel derives is clearly cognate with another Greek word, meaning "covered over." We find it in the Masonic oath to "hele, conceal and never reveal" what they are about to be shown. It is also the source of our word "heal" which quite simply refers to the way a wound is "healed" (covered) by a scab which protects it and keeps out dirt while the underlying wound is getting better. Thus "Hel" also seems to be derived from the idea of something that is "covered." I don't know how much study has been done to investigate how much the dogma of "hell" has been influenced by the Norse term, but it should be of much interest. I have heard it said by Christianoid propagandists that, "Jesus had a lot more to say about hell than he ever did about heaven, so he must have thought it was important." Unfortunately for them, this is a claim that can be checked quite easily if you have a Bible and a concordance on hand. I did so. I went to the KJV in a red-letter edition, the red ink supposedly indicating the actual words that Jesus spoke himself. (How they would know is somewhat mysterious, since the first red-letter edition was printed and offered for sale to the public only in 1901, the brainchild of a Mr. Louis Klopsch). Be that as it may, I went through the Gospel According to Matthew and counted all those occurences of the words "heaven"or "the heavens, only when printed in red. There were a total of 63, certainly not as frequent as one might have thought. yes? Then I counted the number of times I found the word "hell". The total was 54, but not simply in the Gospel of Matthew. No, 54 IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE. Did you get that, friends and neighbors? Jesus referred to heaven in one gospel more often than the entire Bible refers to hell. How can this be? How could anyone teach such a horrid lie? Jesus himself supplied the answer when he told us, "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Now ask yourself, "What could be in the heart of a man who diligently studies a book that speaks of heaven over 700 times and of hell only 54 and comes away from his studies proclaiming it's mostly about hell?" What is in his heart if his mouth speaks out of the abundance of his heart and leads him to proclaim vile nonsense? And the word "abundance" here is the Greek word "perissuo", meaning "that which is over and above." We all live with hearts filled to the brim with both good and evil, with love and hate, with blessing and cursing. When we speak, we tell the world most clearly which side holds the majority opinion within our hearts and thus we reveal what we truly are for anyone who has ears to hear. So when God tells us, "Judge not, lest you be judged," He doesn't mean that He will judge us or that others will judge us, It's much more dire than that; what He means is that we judge ourselves by what we speak, love/hate, good/evil, blessing/cursing, we show clearly what is the greatest within us whenever we speak. It's true that others may judge us also, but only by what we say to them or within their hearing. Beware what you reveal of yourself when you utter an idle, ill-considered word, my friends. And thus endeth my sermon for today. With love, Bob, aka Adastra, The Wizzard of Jacksonville

The End of America?

Wizzard — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:58:27 GMT

There is this nice Jewish woman named Naomi Wolf who has written a book, not her first, but her first on politics. She has something worth saying. The link below will take you to a brief interview she did at a TV station in the state of Washington. I urge all to watch it and consider what she has to say about her 10-point blueprint for a fascist takeover of a democratic state. She is warning us that the plan is already well-advanced in the USA and will succeed unless we all act to stop it soon. She makes a good case in my (admittedly biased) opinion, and it would benefit any citizen to hear her. www.youtube.com/watch If you would like to know more, here is the URL for a video of an address she delivered to an audience also in Washington state. www.youtube.com/watch Ms Wolf has put her finger directly on all the things that have had me worried over my country for the last four decades. Even better, she has analyzed the pattern of fascist takeover into a set of easily understandable and traceable steps that show which way the wind blows. No, you don't have to be a Weatherman. During the fifties, I was in elementary school, middle school and high school and had little awareness of politics. Then in the sixties, I began to come to a realization that I used to express as, "Hitler may have lost the war, but he's winning the peace." As the increasingly fascist direction of national politics began unfolding, it became more and more alarming through the duration of the Peace Movement. During the seventies, I was married and trying to deal with the stresses of that state. It wasn't going well. I tried just to get on with my life and hope that the people would wake up and see what was happening in time to stop it. Didn't happen. In the eighties, I was holding out for an electoral bailout--that the voters would elect saner candidates who would stop the decay. Didn't happen. In the nineties, I was really beginning to worry over what I could do. I didn't find a way out of the morass. In the first decade of this new millenium, I am in despair over the state of our nation. I am not yet ready to advocate violent overthrow of the government, but I know that if we don't do something effective soon, it will be too late for anything but armed insurrection, and I'm too old for that, too vulnerable to oppression, too poor to put up much of a fight. Naomi Wolf has given me new hope that the slide into fascism can be reversed, but I can only hope it isn't too late, that masses of people can be motivated to put their freedoms first and insist on having them restored and respected by our government. How likely is that? I don't know, but I do know that it is up to each of us to do what we can if we hope to preserve a nation worth defending, honoring and living in. People who don't know history are condemned to repeat it. I don't recall who said that (McCauley, perhaps?), but it is being proven again in the USA even as we watch. For me, the first "Aha" moment was listening to a speech by Lyndon Johnson announcing a tax reduction which he said he would like us to consider as a gift from the government to the people. To my utter horror, there was no public outcry and condemnation over the fact that the President of the USA had just told us that our incomes belong to the government and that we should be thankful that they actually let us keep any. I was equally dismayed when I watched on national TV as Clarence Thomas successfully bullied Congress into confirming hin for a Supreme Court seat by playing the race card, accusing those opposing him of racial prejudice, when he (being a Washington insider) was surely aware that he was nominated to replace a black justice, Thurgood Marshall, and that his race was, in fact, a point in his favor with the committee. No one pointed out the sheer cynicism of this tactic. In the 2000 election, when I saw the Supreme Court ignore the law and the court's ethical standards to overturn a presidential election and hand a victory to the politically expedient candidate, I knew that the Republic was doomed unless something was done soon. Since then we have seen another election stolen, the "loyal opposition party" deciding to throw their loyalty to the fascists, and the continual erasure of the Constitutional protections we rely on to defend our freedoms. The hour is late, the watchmen slumber at their posts and we must look to our own defense, since no champion is likely to come to our aid. WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS--if there are to be any at all. With love, Spartacus

Whiter than Snow

Wizzard — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:15:25 GMT

We have all heard that those who are "washed in the blood of the lamb" are made "whiter than snow", correct? Well, not exactly. That particular phrase is used of humans only in the Old Testament and carries two slightly different connotations in the two places where it occurs. In Ps 51:7, the Psalmist's prayer was, "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me and I shall be whiter than snow." Okay, there's the "whiter than snow" part, but there isn't anything said about "the blood of the lamb." Then in Is. 1:18, we find, "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Nothing about lambs in there either, but there is "white as snow," not "whiter than"; we have to look at that one verse in Psalm 51 for the origin of the phrase. I cannot find a single use of "blood of the lamb" (in the sense of Jesus Christ) anywhere in the Bible. The blood of the lamb on the doorposts of the house, was a sign that those within the house were not to be harmed, Death was not on the guest list of that house on that night. It was a sign and a divine promise, the promise of life to those in God's keeping. This is why Jesus is said to be the Lamb of God. He told his followers that he would be the sacrificial lamb that year who would protect his people from death, the curse of the law. He also told them to take bread and wine as a sign of this eternal Passover feast, and to do this in remembrance of him. It was intended as a memorial feast, not a magical ceremony. When he told them that the bread was his body and the wine his blood, the grammar of the Greek text indicates that he was speaking metaphorically, since the word "this" is neutral in gender; if he had been speaking literally, the pronoun would have agreed with the words for bread and wine, neither of which is neutral in Greek. The use of lamb's blood is from the book of Exodus, in which the Egyptians are told that their first-born will die unless they release Israel from bondage. The Jews were told to take a lamb, which could be either young lamb or a young goat, kill it, smear its blood on the doorposts of their houses and then cook and eat the lamb on the same night. This was a sign to the Angel of Death that he should not kill the first-born in that household, but pass over it without doing any harm. That is where the Jewish festival of Passover comes from. To this day, Jews all over the world celebrate the anniversary of that night as the "Passover", because on that night, the Angel of Death passed over them on his way to take the first-born. And the reason for this plague of death upon the first-born of Egypt? In Ex. 11:7, the Lord explains by the mouth of Moses to the Pharoah of Egypt, ". . .that ye may know how that the Lord doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." Why is that? Was it because Israel was without sin? No, because the full understanding of the word "sin" reveals that it referred to the human imperfections and limitations that all humans have to deal with; the children of Israel were not free of these limitations and imperfections, just as none of us are. Yet there is another secret hidden in this verse from Isaiah, one that conceals a great mystery of the Christian faith, which I will do my best to unfold for you now. "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow." Please note that it is not the sinner that will be white as snow, but the sins. Why has no one ever noticed this before? Probably because they haven't reasoned with the Lord, only swallowed His words without tasting or digesting them. Let us forgive them; they are only human and share with all of us the limitations of humanity. The sins will be cleaned until they are white as snow, then the believer will be free from spot, even from the crimson stain of blood. Paul tells us clearly, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." And how can a sin be cleaned? By being woven into a chain of events that turns out for the best, for God's purposes. Look at Joseph in Genesis. His eleven brothers plotted against him and sold him into Egypt as a slave. There he rose to high position in the land of Egypt, because God was with him and guided him in his trials. Thus, later he was able to rescue his brothers and his father and all his people from famine, since Egypt, under Joseph's guidance was able to relieve the great famine that would have starved half the world in that day. And when his brothers repented and begged for his forgiveness, Joseph told them, in Genl 50: 20: :. . .ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." You see how it works? Whatever your sins, God can work them into his plans for your life to bring good out of evil intentions. Look at Haman in the book of Esther; he plotted evil against the Jews to exterminate them. Did he succeed? Go to your nearest synagogue and count the numbers of those present. There are far more Jews in the world today than in the days of Haman. Several decades ago, a man named Hitler had the same ambition and gave it his best shot. So there are no Jews around anymore, right? You won't find a single Jew alive today, correct? Then what is it about this place called Israel? Not only are there lots of Jews today (probably more than in Hitler's era) but they have returned in great numbers to their old homeland and defended it valiantly against all who would destroy them. We cannot see the ends of things as God sees them. Even those of us who can read the future to some extent lack the perfect foresight of God, who sees the end from the beginning. With such clear vision, He can adjust events so the ultimate result is for the best. And He does, of that I am certain. Therefore, though my every action is stained scarlet by my human limitations, I need feel no guilt or fear, because my life is in the keeping of One who can see that I do no harm in the final outcome, but only good, even where I did not intend it. This is the great promise of the Christian faith and the greatest remaining mystery, that God is not only the author of good and evil, but like a brilliant writer, He can change the script so that at the end, the final result of a life is good. Thus, we are not to judge our fellow men and women, since we haven't yet seen the end. And we can never think that we have seen the end, since that end usually isn't seen until long after we are gone from this life. We will see it on that final day of history when all the dead, great and small, stand before God and the books are unsealed and the verdict read. I am confident that on that final day, when my story is told, I shall be found guiltless, and all the rest of humanity as well--and for the same reason. With love, Bob Pendell,aka Adastra. The Wizzard of Jacksonville

And Wine into "Water"

Wizzard — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:30:07 GMT

I've been thinking lately about that old quote from Isak Dinesen. I had forgotten who wrote it or exactly how it went, but I googled it to find out. Here it is: What is man, when you come to think upon him, but a minutely set, ingenious machine for turning with infininite artfulness, the red wine of Shiraz into urine?" Isak Dineson, Danish author (1885-1962) This is a clever, albeit gloomy, point of view. And I have long felt that it is an incomplete viewpoint. After all, does the wine of Shiraz become only urine and nothing more? The same wine can also become a warm memory of good times with friends, of a romantic dinner for two under a starry sky, of a feast to celebrate the birth of a child, the marriage of a loving couple, the success of a business venture. It can simply become a feeling of tipsy joy, not exactly a small matter if we stop to think about it. All these and many other pleasant things the wine can become or become a part of at least. Why dwell on the gross chemical transformation into urine and ignore the less tangible, but quite real experiences that the wine becomes in our lives? Ms Dinesen may have been a great author, but she knew fuck all about the value of pleasure if she had no more positive statement to make than this. And can we truthfully say that man's only ability is to turn wine to piss? What shall we say then to the use of it in Sufi symbolism to represent the love of God, an image so artfully used by Omar Khayyam in his "Rubaiyat"? Is man not also capable of turning ink and paper into a novel, a great poem, a peace treaty, the script for a thrilling motion picture or a declaration of human rights for all the world to see? Is man not capable of turning steel, cement, and glass into a tower that seems to scrape against the vault of heaven? Is he not capable of turning the laws of physics and chemistry into a flight to the moon? Man is more than simply an assortment of chemicals sustaining purely chemical reactions. Any who claim otherwise know nothing of human life and are barely worthy to be thought of as human. Or so I believe. As the poets of ancient Israel once put it in Ps. 8:3-5: "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than God, and hast crowned him with glory and honor." The importance of any experience lies in what we learn from it, what it means to us and what part it plays in our memories and our perspective on life, the universe and everything. Not simply on the least savory idea that it can prompt. With love, Bob Pendell, aka Adastra, the Wizzard of Jacksonville

Public Notice

Wizzard — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:38:49 GMT

I may be a bit neglectful for the next couple of weeks. I seem to have lost my internet connection and I'm not sure how long it will take to restore it. I apologize for any inconvenience. With love, Bob, aka Adastra, the Wizzard of Jacksonville

The Open Heart

Wizzard — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 01:05:10 GMT

Another parable. A bit schmaltzy, but the love of God is reflected in its words. So it should be worth reading. "Tomorrow morning," the surgeon began, "I'll open up your heart..." "You'll find Jesus there," the boy interrupted. The surgeon looked up, annoyed "I'll cut your heart open," he continued, to see how much damage has been done..." "But when you open up my heart, you'll find Jesus in there," said the boy. The surgeon looked to the parents, who sat quietly. "When I see howmuch damage has been done, I'll sew your heart and chest back up, and I'llplan what to do next." "But you'll find Jesus in my heart. The Bible says He lives there. The hymns all say He lives there. You'll find Him in my heart." The surgeon had had enough. "I'll tell you what I'll find in your heart. I'll find damaged muscle, low blood supply, and weakened vessels. And I'll find out if I can make you well." "You'll find Jesus there too. He lives there." The surgeon left. The surgeon sat in his office, recording his notes from the surgery, "...damaged aorta, damaged pulmonary vein, widespread muscle degeneration. No hope for transplant, no hope for cure. Therapy: painkillers and bed rest. Prognosis: here he paused, "death within one year." He stopped the recorder, but there was more to be said. "Why?" he asked aloud. "Why did You do this? You've put him here; You've put him in this pain; and You've cursed him to an early death. Why?" The Lord answered and said, "The boy, my lamb, was not meant for your flock for long, for he is a part of My flock, and will forever be. Here, in My flock, he will feel no pain, and will be comforted as you cannot imagine. His parents will one day join him here, and they will know peace, and My flock will continue to grow." The surgeon's tears were hot, but his anger was hotter. "You created that boy, and You created that heart. He'll be dead in months. Why?" The Lord answered, "The boy, My lamb, shall return to My flock, for He has done his duty: I did not put My lamb with your flock to lose him, but to retrieve another lost lamb." The surgeon wept... The surgeon sat beside the boy's bed; the boy's parents sat across from him. The boy awoke and whispered, "Did you cut open my heart?" "Yes," said the surgeon. "What did you find?" asked the boy. "I found Jesus there," said the surgeon. Author Unknown

Xango Returns

Wizzard — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:56:47 GMT

My second encounter with Xango came while I was at work one night (I used to work in a twenty-four hour restaurant). One of the cooks was Steve, a major Florida Gators fan (Univesity of Florida).. At the time, the Gators had just lost an important football game to Florida State and the two teams were neck and neck in the race for the national title. Steve came over to me one Friday night and told me that he had figured it out that it would help the Gators in the national standings if Texas were to beat Nebraska the next day. I suggested that the information was of some interest but that I didn't understand the relevance at that moment. Then he asked if there wasn't something I could do to help. Well, this was certainly surprising. I felt a bit flattered naturally, but I had to tell him that there was no way I would even think of trying to influence a football game. Just not going to happen; I wouldn't think of it. He pleaded and begged and nagged for awhile, and I kept telling him, "No!" Then suddenly an image flashed into my head, quite out of nowhere it seemed. I saw a tall, young, athletic looking black man, dressed all in red, with his hair in a beaded fringe, carrying a big, double-bladed axe. This apparition I recognized as Xango (or Shango) one of the chief gods of the Yoruba people of Nigeria. This was the guy I had had the dance with as narrated in the last blog post. He was looking at me silently, with an expression that seemed to say, "Why don't we talk about this?" So I relented. I told Steve that I knew someone who might be able to help, I refused to guarantee anything, but I would try and see what I could do. He was pleased. So, I told him that if he were serious, I would need a dollar for materials. He handed me a dollar with no hesitation whatever. I thought about it and said that this would probably work better as a gambling issue and asked him to go make a bet with someone, anyone. If he would bet a dollar on Texas, it would make things easier. He went off and made a one dollar bet with his brother, Scott. When he came back, I thought to ask him, just from curiosity, what the point spread might be. He looked a little embarassed and finally told me it was Nebraska by 20 points. WHAT? This looked really difficult. But then I had an offer of help from Xango, so let's not panic. . .yet. I told Steve that I would aim for a final score of Texas by ten points. He protested that one point would be enough for Texas to win. True, but I had never tried anything like this before, so I wanted some room for error. In the morning, I stopped at the grocery on the way home and bought four ripe bananas because Xango likes bananas and his favorite number is four. It is advisable in Santeria, Candomble and similar faiths to provide the gods some energy to work with when we ask them for something. Food is always welcome. I went home and spent about an hour in designing a ritual and making a talisman for the purpose. The design of the talisman (for those who might be interested) was a sigil for luck on the front of a square of parchment paper. On the reverse, I printed the words, "Texas over Nebraska by ten points." Then I dressed the talisman with a bit of Lady Luck Oil that I happened to have handy. I set up an altar in my bedroom with candles of the "Seven African Powers" arranged at the back of the table, with Xango's candlle in the center of the row. I placed a white votive candle at the front edge of the altar, the candle dressed with the same oil, and then I banished with the Star Ruby ritual, lit the candles and spent some time raising energy with the Ritual of the Middle Pillar, a Chakra Energizing ritual and a few rounds of Rune Galdr. After each of these three exercises, I charged the talisman ten times for a total of thirty charges. Then I sat quietly meditatiing to try to get in touch with Xango. After a bit, I seemed to feel I had his attention and I placed the bananas on the altar, telling him (mentally) that these were a small gift to introduce myself and thank him for his attention. I explained what I wanted and suggested that it would be really amusing if Texas were to win today's game by ten points. I told him that I would be sure to give him the credit for the result and offered a few other promises as additional incentive. His response, so far as I could determine, was that this would be amusing to him as well, and that the offer of assigning credit was sufficient. Of course, all thiis is entirely subjective, so I was simply going on vague impressions with no impressive manifestations of divine favor. Nonetheless, I felt more confident. I snuffed the candles, except for the votive candle and I went ot sleep. That evening, i woke around 7:00. The votive candle was still burning, but was getting very low. I dressed and went out to the living room, where my roommate was watching television. I had told him nothing about the ritual or the football situation. I asked him if he knew the score on the Texas/Nebraska game. He told me that the final score had been Texas 37 to 27. WHAT? I went to the phone and called the local line for sport scores; the recorded listing confirmed the score Joe had given me. Texas had won the game by exactly ten points! That felt good. Was it the result of anything I had done? I don't know. How can anyone prove something like that? I just went back to my room and snuffed the votive candle after burning the talisman, which seemed to have done its work. I took the bananas with me that night and disposed of them under a tree as recommended by the teachers of this tradition. Steve and Scott both greeted me with considerable enthusiasm when I arrived at work. "Probably a coincidence," I told them. Steve snorted derisively, and replied, "A thirty point swing against the spread? to Texas by exactly ten points? I think not." So I told them that they should thank Xango rather than me for the score. Which they did with great glee. Thinking back it occurs to me that one way to look at this was that Xango felt he owed me something for allowing him the chance to use me for dancing at the Candomble temple. This could be seen as his way of balancing the score. If that makes any sense to anyone. Steve asked me very seriously not to do anything to help Florida directly since he wanted them to win on their own if they could, without help from magick. The Gators went on to win the national championship that year with no further help from me. This happened as reported. I must emphasize that it "proves" nothing at all. But it made me feel good. I can't speak for the Nebraska Cornhuskers, of course--nor for the F.S.U. Seminoles. ;-) With love, Bob, aka Adastra, the Wizzard of Jacksonville

Superheroes

Wizzard — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 17:08:38 GMT

And superheroes come to feast To taste the flesh not yet deceased. And all I know is still the beast Is feeding. Janet's verse from the "Superheroes" number in the "Rocky Horror Picture Show." I was watching the movie with a friend the other day when this particular verse reminded me of some thoughts it suggests regarding the nature of human life. While I have no way of knowing exactly what Richard O'Brien intended by these words, they are still thought-provoking. As I see it, the "superheroes" are the great myths and their heroes by which humans interpret the often-puzzling universe in which we find ourselves living. These archetypes influence all of us in ways of which we are often unaware. (Sorry, awkward phrasing I know, but I hate to have the preposition at the end of the sentence. Grammatical indoctrination.) The archetypes, according to Jungian psychology live deep in the collective unconscious, which might be thought of as the collective memory of our species. Thence we derive our greatest artistic inspiration and our deepest insights into the why of life. Through our daily lives, decisions, actions, thoughts and intentions, we live out the stories of the archetypes and their relationships with each other. Every intimate erotic relationship involves a bit of influence from Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet." Any rebellion against a tyrant involves a bit of "Macbeth." Any efforts to suppress such a rebellion will at least remind loyalists of the fall of Satan--or of some parallel story in another mythology. And what father-daughter relationship does not draw to some extent on the myth of Elektra, or for mother-son on Oedipus and on the Virgin Mother, often in equal and mutually reinforcing parts? These superheroes seem to rise from the depths of what Jung called the "collective unconscious" and they claim their roles in our lives. They thus live through us humans and our lives. In fact, since they are psychological constructs this is the only way in which they are able to live. We give them life through our own re-enactments of their stories. They come to taste our flesh, not in the sense of consuming us in a bizarre cannibalistic sense, but in the sense of experiencing life in the flesh. This is the realization that strips the lyric of terror and introduces a sense of wonder. Yet, there is a horrific side to the bargain. We get to participate in great, significant events by donning the myths as a mental garment and acting the assigned roles. The characters live through our participation in their stories. Yet, if we are not careful, the myth can become so powerful that who we are is often devoured by the story and we lose ourselves in fantasy. The actor who cannot put aside his role when the house lights come up and the curtain falls is doomed--not perhaps to death, but to entombment in a myth that has become an inescapable prison for him. And this is death of a sort, the death of the actor as an authentic person. The result can be mania, obsession or dementia, as people try to live their myths full-time in situations which are inappropriate to the favored myth. This can be seen in those poor souls who try to pretend they are actually living in Tolkien's Middle Earth, or the more extreme Trekkies,or the people who are convinced they are Jesus Christ, the Antichrist, Napoleon. In some religious practices, the use of this form of possession is recognized, honored, encouraged. This is especially true in the Afro-Caribbean religions such as Voudon, Santeria, Candomble or Lucumi. Here the "gods" really do come to taste (experience) human life in a physical possession usually expressed in ecstatic dance, prophesy, or even good advice dispensed by the visiting spirit. In some cultures this would be condemned, but in the faiths that use it, such possessions are considered positive and beneficial to both the god and the devotee. It is a mutual exchange for mutual benefit and is eagerly sought by the worshiper. It can even occur to an "innocent" bystander, as I discovered once when I was visiting a Candomble service and was apparently "possessed" by Xango. Here's the tale: I was attending a Friday night service with a roommate at the time, Joe, at the Ile Xango Temple. The "Ile Xango" means "house of Xango", he being one of the major Orishas or "gods" of the Brazilian tradition known as Candomble. It's a lot like Santeria, but in Portuguese. After the service, they brought out the drums and begin drumming and dancing with great enthusiasm. Candomble is a happy faith. Standing near the dance floor, a strange feeling began to spread through my mind. The best way to say it is that I realized that dancing was about to happen--to me. It had nothing to do with what I wanted; it was much bigger than that--not that I had any particular objection. It also did not seem to be a case that I was going to dance, more that the dancing was going to happen regardless of what I did. This was not the least bit frightening or unpleasant, I felt a sort of inevitability and resignation to the advent, with perhaps a bit of antici. . . .pation. I began a few tentative dance steps without plan or thought, just because it felt good. The priestess looked over at me and called out, "Xango!" with a bright smile. She grabbed me by the hand and pulled me out to the middle of the floor. Now this was embarrassing. I had no idea how Xango was supposed to dance, what his dancing was like. Nevertheless, I didn't want to be rude, so I decided I would dance a few steps just to be polite and then let someone who knew what he was doing take my place. What a joke on me! I remember dancing what seemed like about 15 or 20 seconds, just a few steps really, then all at once for no reason I could find, my knees buckled. I couldn't stand up. I was falling. Before I could even feel alarmed, however, one of the bystanders caught me before I hit the floor and helped me to a chair on the side. I sat there for several minutes, panting and exhausted, wondering what had just happened and if there was something medically wrong. Still, I didn't feel frightened or worried. I felt actually rather peaceful and content, just a bit puzzled. Later on the drive home, I remarked to Joe that at least I had had the chance to dance a little. He looked at me as if I were demented and replied, "A LITTLE? Oh, no, Bob, you danced a LOT! Alll over the place, up and down the center aisle. For at least four or five minutes. In fact, I couldn't help wondering just where an old man like you was getting all that energy." "Funny," I said, "I don't remember anything about that." "Well, according to the theory, you're not supposed to, are you?" He was right. I suddenly realized that I had completely misunderstood the phenomenon. I had thought that the idea was to dance until the spirit took over and then you went into a trance and had to rest for awhile. No way. First the spirit comes into you, then you enter trance and dance--the collapse comes only when the spirit releases you and you return to normal consciousness. While the spirit is present, you are really not there, not consciously at least. You pass out and the spirit "dances" you until it is satisfied and leaves you with a gift of calm contentment. It's really a thrilling experience, one that I cherish. It is also an education in discovering the limits of who we are. I must add that the possessing entity is not an invader; thinking about it the feelings I had before the incident are rather more like a silent request from the entity to the subject, asking consent to the dance. It only happens when the mortal subject agrees to it. Which is just as well, since otherwise such possession seems to me to be demonic rather than divine. It was an exhilirating experience in toto and it seems Xango is not ungrateful for the favor, since later, he did a favor for me in return. I rather think it was simply his way of saying "Thanks for the dance." And so there is reciprocity. This also explains a surprise I got after the event, one I didn't really understand until Joe told me what had happened. After the dancing had run its course, the priestess thanked the guests for joining them in the celebration of their faith and announced that the initiates of the Temple had to go into private session to handle the business of the House. So, would everyone else please go home now, only initiates were to be admitted to the meeting. She also thanked everyone for attending and assured them that they were welcome to the services at any time. As I got up to leave, she looked over and called out, "Bob--not you. You stay." "Maria," I said, "I'm not an initiate." "No, you're not," she responded, "but you don't have to be. I know that; I don't know how I know it, but I know it." So I stayed, I think that the fact that I was "chosen" by Xango in the House of Xango and that I was apparently the first person there who had been visited by their patron had something to do with it. At any rate, she told me during the meeting that they had no one to serve as priest yet and asked me if I would help them out as a sort of "acting priest" in the interim. So I did; I felt honored, in fact. I will have more to say about Xango (known as Shango in Santeria) and the favor he did for me at another time. This is long enough already. Adastra, the Wizzard of Jacksonville