Always An Argument I Am Loathe To Make

30 Mar

intelligence-bulletin

Intelligence Bulletin

samplex

Date: Mon Mar 30, 1998 11:15:54 AM

It was swell to hear from you, Ravi. Your letter has assured me that I should not consider you a stranger in the ways of irony and strengths of confidence. I have yet to hear from my brother's wife at length on the nature of his decision, and may never.

I will not give you my address, nor shall I send you pictures. Would you like me to explain why not? Primarily I must refuse this request because I now prefer to communicate over the Internet. I have sent you the URLs of my two websites, have I not, where there are plenty of pictures of me, my wife, and many others, taken at many different periods of our lives. There will be hundreds more there soon, as I have only just begun to flesh out my artistic vision to which I claim an exclusive. I have cut off others from my communication because I no longer wish to use the standard postal service when I can avoid it, and I see no reason to make a special exception for you, a stranger. While it is true some of these folks I once wrote on paper still send me mail the old-fashioned way, and I do love to get their mail, and I feel ever so slightly guilty that I do not take time to respond to them in like fashion, I am resolved in this matter, and until I am convinced otherwise, I will use my progressive schedule as an excuse to communicate solely through the wonders of electronic mail and my web sites. And yes, I loathe the miracle of the telephone, except in issues of direct problemsolving. I may be wrong in suspecting your motives Ravi, but I wonder why you would request my address since we met online (to possess a relic of an American). Of an acutely suspicious mind, I find myself thinking that I will not conspire to be subjected to a flood of christian bible tracts some faraway proseletyzer believes I must read. This may not have been your motivation, and thus I apologize my friend in advance for any presumptions on my part, but in my defense, I am quite weary of "tell-it-on-the-mountain" types. Remember, this is a nation wholly populated with a thousand different Jesus sectarians all preaching a different petty version of the gospel in their condescending tones and moral thunders against the backdrop of a mind-numbing theologic architecture. Have no fear. I find even I am myself guilty of this sort of arrogance when forced to deal with certain types of "believers" as you yourself have witnessed in my last letter. And this one as well.

My point is, my dear lad, you can toss bible stories at me all day, and yes, I remember what has been written, and I can add a personal tale to each, but what do we gain except perhaps a deeper sense of sharing, which is enough, if we can accept that sharing is all it is. I don't believe I have taken the tone of trying to "teach" you anything, and so I certainly don't appreciate the tone I read in your letters to me as you trot out scripture after scripture and book after book, as if in doing so you have proved the existence of God, Christ, and truth in your own life, much less their very existence in the world, which many now doubt, with as many good reasons as do you present in your affectations of faith.
Secondly, I am dismayed that while you recognized the severity of the issue in my brother's scenario, you were quick, just like our younger sister (mother of four), to point out scriptures which support the dutiful honoring of family (government) while remaining silent on the scriptures which support denying family (government) for the sake of the greater ideal, which is expressed as God's will. But this is rather typical, and noting it, I don't fault you for that. After all, you were aptly agreeing with my assessment that Allan should not go lightly into that dark night which surely awaits him should he publically renounce his United States citizenship on such flimsy grounds many "spiritists" find themselves thinking is God's will rather than their own. But then perhaps they are ALL correct, and THAT is God's will. Many are the bible idolaters who claim to understand the "whole" of the scripture but in fact, they tend only to pick through the ashes of a book of fire which support their own well-intentioned but hardly definitive positions. Case in point, as one of the ten commandments, was it not written that man should not make for himself graven images of any creature or thing found on earth or in heaven? Many Jews and Christians and Moslems understand this to forbid trinkets and caricatures of animals and other things found in nature. Also paintings and photographs of people, places, and things, earthly and heavenly, are forbidden. However you obviously do not interpret your "whole" scripture in this way. And I certainly do not, although I once "tested the spirit" as Paul put it, for several years in my middle 20s when I lived minimally in Corpus Christi Texas, in the early 1980s. I gave up my personal identification, driver's license (government sanctioned), and all keys, until my landlord at the time insisted I lock my doors so that he might not lose his furnishings to random vandalism. My point is, my dear lad, you can toss bible stories at me all day, and yes, I remember what has been written, and I can add a personal tale to each, but what do we gain except perhaps a deeper sense of sharing, which is enough, if we can accept that sharing is all it is. I don't believe I have taken the tone of trying to "teach" you anything, and so I certainly don't appreciate the tone I read in your letters to me as you trot out scripture after scripture and book after book, as if in doing so you have proved the existence of God, Christ, and truth in your own life, much less their very existence in the world, which many now doubt, with as many good reasons as do you present in your affectations of faith.

Allan has rejected "churchianity" and while possessing quite a sharp mind in his ability to cut away the fat of theological sophistry, he is also quite unlearned, and unfortunately, rather proud of that fact. Ten years ago he thought God was calling him away to minister in Africa, although he had no earthly idea how he was to get there since he had severed his ties with the his wife's congregation. Perhaps he had not severed them at this time, but nevertheless, he is always pining to do something other than support his family, and therein lies his true motivation. He wants God to do it. Funny how his God can barely put food on the table and clothes on his children's backs (with generous acts of charity by the church, family, and friends), just so Allan can go spread the word about Jesus, but that same God can't help Allan quit smoking cigarettes which have rotted all his teeth, or give him a clear direction or motivating speech for His Own ministry's sake. Bottom line: Allan seeks distinction, greatness, superiority through active humility. Now don't misunderstand, I do not equate physical perfection or strict moral codes with the grace of God as explained by the gospel. Many are the arguments I am loathe to make in defense for my love of God, humanity, and life. Much of christianity does however, including yourself I note, but the message of Jesus is much more sublime than that crock of fascist imperatives, at the same time both more simple, and more complex than any moral code, physical trait, or personal cleanliness. After all, the "whole" of the law was said to have been condensed into loving God with all one's being and loving thy neighbor as thyself, was it not?

That said, I will rest for now, and await your next approach.

Gabriel

© 1998 - 2013, Gabriel Thy. All rights reserved.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

S A M P L E X

"Ignorance and virtue suck on the same straw. Souls grow on bones, but die beneath bankers' hours.""


Top

Login