The single most important literary theme in the Hebrew Scriptures is justice. The God of the Israelites valued justice above any other claim. To live in absence of justice was to live without the blessing of this God.

The Israelites were a people who knew something about tyranny having spent thousands of years under the boots of various dictators. Especially critical for this unseen and unnamed God, was the protection of widows and orphans, the wretched poor, marginalized and abused by systemic oppression. The relationship between this people and their God represented a covenant that could not be broken or abrogated. The Israelites were in covenant with a God who had delivered them from oppressive slavery and certain extermination.

The prophetic voice throughout the Hebrew Scriptures tells of a wisdom always pressing itself against privilege. This voice is clear, and loudly proclaims liberation for captives. Listen - if you are able - to an ancient wisdom still relevant for a contemporary audience. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with “belief” or “faith” or the mistaken hullabaloo of a few Christian fundamentalists who do not understand, or embody what the wisdom is attempting to convey.

“Thus says the Lord of hosts: Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the orphan, the alien, or the poor” Zechariah 7:9-10

“Thus says the Lord God: Enough, O princes of Israel! Put away violence and oppression, and do what is just and right. Cease your evictions of my people” Ezekiel 45: 9-10

Listen to the prophet Amos as he repudiates false gatherings [worship] in the name of Yahweh while too many live under the terrible weight of oppression:

“I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the offerings of well being of your fatted animals, I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs [worship]; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like and everflowing stream. Amos 5:21-24

“For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. Hosea 6:6

Isaiah following Amos tells us this:

“…Your new moons and appointed festivals my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. When you stretch out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood…learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.” Isaiah 1:10-17

“For if you truly amend your ways and your doings, if you truly act justly one with another, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own hurt, then I will dwell with you in this place… Jeremiah 7:5-7.

The last example from Jeremiah serves as a fitting climax. Here is the context.

Around the year 609 BCE, with the Assyrian Empire gasping for its last breath, Jeremiah went to the Temple in Jerusalem and announced that God would abandon that place if the people persisted in social injustice:

Social injustice is more than a set of circumstances; it has become a way of life in Amerika by both sides of the status quo: Democrat and Republican alike. It is a way of life for those who condemn corporations out one side of their mouth, and then turn around and market their garbage and collect a fee to do so out the other side of their mouth.

There is not much time left folks: wake up, or prepare for the consequences.

quote:

Do not remove an ancient landmark or encroach on the fields of orphans, for their redeemer is strong; he will plead their cause against you. Proverbs 23:10

quote:

Do not rob the poor because they are poor, or crush the afflicted at the gate; for the Lord pleads their cause and despoils of life those who despoil them. Proverbs 22:22-23

quote:

righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne. Psalm 89:14

quote:

Happy are those who observe justice, who do what is right at all times. Psalm 106:3

quote:

I delievered the poor who cried,
and the orphan who had no helper.

The blessing of the wretched came upon me,
and I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy.

I put on righteousness, and it clothed me;
my justice was life a rode and turban.

I was eyes to the blind,
and feet to the lame.

I was father to the needy,
and I championed the cause of the stranger.

Job

quote:

There is not much time left folks: wake up, or prepare for the consequences.

A call for people to self-reflect?

Methinks, rather, a call to action, Miles...

What do people have to do in order for the to go from inertia towards action?

quote:

What do people have to do in order for the to go from inertia towards action?

Forget about what people have to do and just concentrate on what you yourself do. Your actions will inspire others into action.

Christopher - as usual, excellent thread, Love

quote:

It is a way of life for those who condemn corporations out one side of their mouth, and then turn around and market their garbage and collect a fee to do so out the other side of their mouth.

Was actually discussing with a client who wanted financial prosperity but said he 'condemned' this money-driven culture we're in (it's not only the US). The 'culture' is many other things too besides money-driven and to reject this part of it, we could be in fact rejecting the All of our living environment. I believe we have to find the ability to love ourselves before we can love our surroundings and take the necessary steps to a create change for the better.

I found that there's a huge stigma put on me (and for a long time I've allowed that) because I'm getting paid for being a spiritual practitioner and an artist. Money is spiritual too, and I couldn't say that I denounce money for all time because it wouldn't be true. I consciously chose to open myself up to the spirituality of money so that I was able to receive it in the manner that I chose, by being passionate and by doing things I am truly passionate about... This enables me to help others more...

quote:

Forget about what people have to do and just concentrate on what you yourself do. Your actions will inspire others into action.

Wonderfully said, Kennster...

Miles -

Re: A call for people to self-reflect?

**Good job Miles. While Kenny is correct in pointing out the importance of inspiring others by our own actions, without a 'change in understanding', any actions taken without a change in understanding will likely produce similar unsatisfactory results.

Action is certainly vital to constructive change, but there's a big difference (it seems to me) between simply reacting, and being clear (reflecting/observing/exploring) about the actual nature of a particular life reality and an action which stems from a clear understanding or that reality.

Humans 'act' when they 'understand' the importance of acting. Those who currently aren't acting need a 'change in understanding' to change the behavior, which can often occur as a result of reflection & inquiry. If a person thinks it's a waste of time to try to change things, no amount of "inspiring actions" are not likely to change that belief. But reflection and inquiry can change that confused belief and lead to action. Inspiring actions can motivate those who are currently 'sitting on the fence' about acting, but they don't change the understanding of someone who thinks it's a waste of time. That requires seeing the situation in a new way before any action is likely to occur...it seems to me.

Regards - Howard

'Analysis Paralysis'?

Howard, Klausie,

I agree with you and although inspiring others does take place to a certain extent that should not be the motivator.

Perhaps I should have left it as:

quote:

Forget about what people have to do and just concentrate on what you yourself do.

We can only change ourselves with any certainty.

Klaus -

Re: Analysis Paralysis?

**This is one of the main hurdles I constantly have to address when raising the issue of cooperative dialogue. My latest message in an attempt to raise this issue is:

"Adversarial Debate is a Miserable Failure."

What I'm trying to suggest to people who may not yet be familiar with any of the new forms of exploratory/cooperative dialogue is to point out that the culture 'conditions' us to a defective adversarial approach. And it also 'conditions' us to "analyze" rather than to cooperatively explore. So I'm suggesting that it would be beneficial to our survival to see this 'dysfunctional conditioning' for what it actually is, and to move to something more coherent.

I'm not suggesting analyzing, despite the common cultural assumption that I am. I'm suggesting 'direct perception', observing, listening, pondering, etc.. Or in other words: "How humans best reach clarity about their environment and internal thought processes."

Analysis, to my understanding (generally speaking), is about thinking about something using one's existing knowledge (the currently held beliefs & opinions). That has a tendency to stay 'inside the box' of one's current knowledge. But I'm not suggesting that, I'm suggesting 'looking freshly' at a specific aspect of reality while holding one's existing views loosely so that other possibilities can be given adequate consideration.

The world humans are creating by their actions, that we live in and experience each day, is always a reflection of the underlying thinking. If that underlying understanding doesn't change, the behavior doesn't change (to any noticeable degree). Inquiry and exploration facilitate the possibility of 'insight', which is what will change the understanding.

One of the difficult parts of raising this issue of cooperative dialogue seems to be 'getting beyond the cultural assumptions' that this dialogue is the same exact thing as the dysfunctional debates or other unpleasant past conversational experiences that most people are so familiar with. It's hard to talk about something which apparently many people have never actually tried. We actually do sometimes relate in this cooperative manner with close friends, but so far it's still a very uncommon social experience for most people (to my experience). And since we humans judge things by our past experience, it's hard to communicate something new which many seem to think doesn't exist, because they've never experienced it.

Regards - Howard

Kenny - I think you are correct about the 'certainty', but one thing I've noticed after hearing countless people say something to the effect of: "You can't change other people" is this:

We are constantly changing each other.

That's the fact. What doesn't often happen is other people behaving according to one's specific desires. But regardless of that apparent impossibility of people acting in perfect accordance to our desires, we are still constantly influencing each other, and changing one another. It doesn't often occur in large noticeable ways, or with any degree of certainty, but nevertheless, it's happening.

And this is observable if one slows down and looks at what's going on in relationship.

Regards - Howard

Howard,

I'm still thinking a lot about your remars on adversarial debate.

Thanks!

Howard I agree. I think though we influence others to change themselves.

Kenny -

Re: I think though we influence others to change themselves.

**Unfortunately, this is a topic which I feel requires an uncommon interest to go beyond the traditional ideology of 'cultural beliefs' to really 'get to the bottom of this'.

My suggestion is that the common notion/belief (that most humans seem to hold), of some 'separate-self' which is going to "choose to change", is actually just a fiction of 'thought'. The 'self-image' of some "chooser", is just that--'thought', an image in thought (a false division in thought).

'Thought' doesn't 'decide to change', "seeing" some aspect of life, in a 'new way', changes the existing understanding (alters the existing thinking)...not by a choice of a self-image, but because something new is seen. If we influence another person to change, it's not because they "change themselves", it's because seeing something in a new way has changed their understanding.

Now, I suggest that this is 'subjectively verifiable'. But thought will resist this suggestion that what we normally think of as a "chooser" is really just 'thought' pretending to be something separate from our other beliefs and opinions that can act independently of our existing views.

To see this, one needs to 'know thyself' intimately, and most people seem to be quite resistant to the proposition of seriously questioning who they are and the nature of everything they hold to be true.

This perhaps is actually a good example of what I'm suggesting, of how one can't actually "change oneself". If one believes the self-image is a real entity, that there actually is a separate 'chooser' separate from the existing beliefs & opinions, 'you' (the self-image/ego) can't change itself to believing it's just a fiction of thought. Change requires an 'insight' into the nature of the self-image to 'shed light on' the confusion and change the understanding. That's how humans learn, I suggest, by looking & observing. Thinking stays within a box of concepts & experience, and looking opens up new possibilities.

Thought is always limited to the currently existing beliefs, opinions, and experience. More information and experience can be added, as it is everyday of our existence, but it's always limited at any given moment to what we know at that moment for making decisions or imagining. Thought can't step outside of it's existing experience to decide to change to something it doesn't yet know which is outside of it's limits. Thought can re-arrange that past experience into all sorts of different patterns via imagination, but it's always limited to past experience for it's imagining. If we wish to understand something 'outside' of our current experience, we need to 'look', or open up to seeing it. And it's that seeing which will alter the understanding, which then becomes part of our current thought. But despite the fact that 'thought' will suggest that 'we choose to change', the actual change occurs with the 'seeing'. And this can be seen directly for oneself, if one slows down this process and observes it.

'That's my direct experience of it, anyway.'

Regards - Howard

Howard I totally agree with you. I was just trying to give Miles a simpler answer

But. Yes. Even taking it another step. Are we really individuals at all? Is our perceived individual identity merely a mental construct based on our limited awareness and perception?

Everything's in flux...

quote:

I was just trying to give Miles a simpler answer

blech

The intention was good Miles. How you take it is up to you

vlep

Quite

Tuut?

Kenny -

Re: Is our perceived individual identity merely a mental construct based on our limited awareness and perception.

**My general response would be "Yes." But I'd probably put it like this: We are 'conditioned' to think we are separate, and the way we think makes it feel that way. We 'perceive' space between manifest objects due to the nature of our senses. I always liked the way Alan Watts addressed this: "Is the skin what separates us or what connects us?"

As far as awareness goes, what we seem to often be most aware of is our beliefs and opinions. What we are looking at or experiencing in our everyday life is actually 'One Undivided Whole' with a diversity of manifestations, but due to our conditioning, we 'think/believe' that the names we've given to the different aspects of this diverse undivided whole are actual divisions. But these conceptual divisions are no more 'real divisions' than the artificial lines we humans put on the ground claiming that one side is Mexico, and the other side the US, while somehow thinking it's not the same body of land on the same One Earth. The "divisions" are artificial/conceptual divisions 'in thought'. And if this manner of thinking goes 'unquestioned', then that incoherence in thought results in incoherent behaviors. And war, of course, is the extreme example of this incoherence in human thought.

That's my perception and understanding of it.

Thanks.

Regards - Howard

That's pretty much my perception too Howard. I admire some of the Buddhist writings on thought and perception too. I think the coming together of Eastern spiritual thought and Western mind science is finding some interesting overlaps.

Who let the vlep out?

Woof Woof

Hipsk.

quote:

Woof Woof

Down boy

quote:

Hipsk.

Bless you

flut

quote:

We are 'conditioned' to think we are separate, and the way we think makes it feel that way. We 'perceive' space between manifest objects due to the nature of our senses.

What I don't understand is the stigma against being different.

I don't understand why people can't say, "Dammit, I am different! I am an individual above all else. And as an individual here are all the gloriously unique things I can bring to the table."

As for, "the way we think makes it feel that way" I just have to say -- I grew up as a gifted, (rare), left handed female, (very rare), who experiences over-excitabilities, (very rare), and synaesthesia, (very very rare).

These things pretty much set me up for failure (...or at least a psychiatric diagnose or two. )in a system defined by averages and norms.

It wasn't until I began acknowledging these things as real valid DIFFERENCES that I could begin to take steps forward in my own individual understanding of my "self"... ...and this in turn was the catalyst that allowed me to understand my place in the majority.


Whoa... ..that was some serious rambling. I hope you guys understand what I am trying to say.

It seems that THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE came first or survival of the fittest. Then came THE LAW OF JUSTICE which is "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life", or revenge. Then came THE LAW OF LOVE, i.e. "AGAPE" or understanding that whatever one does, self included, is either right, proper or justifiable the one doing it. It occured to me that in the not too distant past another law emerged: THE LAW OF CONSCIOUSNESS that states that man must know himself, how he was conditioned and how he has become a robot to those who know how to manipulate. When he becomes conscious of his chains, he may choose to break them and perhaps influence others to break theirs, etc. "Know thyself", "To thine own self be true." "It is hard to be true to a changing self." As long as "the law of justice" or "the law of the jungle" is the operative method, the crap we see will continue. How many conscious folks are writing in to Thom's message boards?