Conversations about CWG

I believe...

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:33:10 GMT

I haven't seen a post here in awhile. Lately things have been awry and I've felt so separate from everything and everyone. I'm concentrating on creating good again. Instead of searching for the peace, I'm choosing to create it and sometimes it's challenging.

Anyway, Neale's daily emails are so wonderful. I just wanted to share what I got today because it's such a wonderful reminder. Be well everyone.

Namaste.

On this day of your life, dear friend, I believe God wants you to know...

...that your light is seen, your heart is known, your soul

is cherished by more people than you might imagine.

If you knew how many others have been touched in

wonderful ways by you, you would be astonished. If

you knew how many people feel so much for you, you

would be shocked.

You are far more wonderful than you think you are.

Rest with that. Rest easy with that. Breathe again. You

are doing fine. More than fine. Better than fine. You're

doin' great. So relax. And love yourself today.

Then take in God's love. Right now, take it in. You

deserve it.

Neale Donald Walsch Cruise

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:38:52 GMT

Is anyone else out there going on the Neale Donald Walsch Cruise to Alaska next month?

Transcript: Defense of Marriage or Defense of Love Podcast

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:04:00 GMT

Defense of Marriage or Defense of Love
http://alovemovement.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=349033

Before I get into today’s podcast, I must ask your indulgence, because I am doing something I have never done before on the podcast. And that is, I am reading off of a script that I have pre-written. An essay, if you will.

I am doing this because sometimes I know I get carried away during the podcasts and get slightly off track, and sometimes stray away from my core points in a manner which is even hard for me to return to the original points or statements.

So I ask for your indulgence during this episode if I sound stunted or rehearsed or if I am devoid of some of my normal inflections. But I want to be very clear in everything I say about this subject.

Recently, on a listserv for an organization I belong to, a question was posted by a member as to whether or not the organization should support the proposed “Defense of Marriage Act.” To be fair, there were responses both for and against the law in general, and the voices against stated strongly that our organization should not, in any way, participate, pro or con, in this initiative.

The reality is, this organization would NOT support such a measure. It would be inappropriate and according to or stated goals, not something we would participate in. However, there are many members who would individually support such an initiative, just as there are many, like myself, who would oppose it.

Yet, the problem is not whether or not my organization would support the measure. The problem is, once again, the justification used in order to justify their opposition.

That justification usually boils down to this. God says it’s wrong. The Bible says it wrong.

Theologically speaking, there is very little true basis to oppose gay marriage. Or homosexuality for that matter. Practically speaking, when using scripture as a basis, we run into two problems. Those who want to take the bible literally, and those who don’t.

The problem with those who want to take the Bible literally is that they actually don’t. All sorts of justifications are used in order to discount I have heard everything from “Jesus invalidated the Old Testament” to “Well, those laws weren’t meant to be taken that way.” There is also the issue that no one follows the rules of the Bible to the exact letter. There are tons of rules, edicts and commandments that no one follows anymore. And individuals have accepted some and rejected others based on the cultural climate of the time. And it is made worse because the Biblical literalists and religious fundamentalists are dishonest about it.

Of course, those who do not take the Bible literally, like myself, are accused of that last point of well, saying that certain things weren’t meant to be taken a certain way and that we pick and choose which things we follow. Only, they are right. We do that and we are honest about it, because non-Biblical literalists like myself are honest in saying that interpretations are faulty and flawed, correctly stating that scriptures have been mis-translated and that because of the influence of Man on religious scriptures, many of the issues are incompatible with the basic concept of God. Our other problem is that in order to expose one point, we take the literalist position and then run with it.

Which ever side of the debate you fall on, there is a bigger problem with this discussion. And that is using religious principles to enact secular laws. I am completely in agreement with those who say that religion, in any way, shape or form, should have no impact on the laws of the United States.

While many will claim that America was founded on Christian principles, the reality is quite different. There ARE spiritual ideologies woven into the fabric of the constitution and the Declaration of Independence. As evidenced from the personal writings of the authors, things were written into the declaration on purpose.

Of the men that drafted the document, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman and Richard Henry Lee, all had previously professed, in one way or another a belief in God. The problem is, there is an assumption that they all had a belief in the Christian God, which is inaccurate.

However, it is also inaccurate to assume because their writings were critical of Christianity and specifically, the Church of England, specifically Jefferson and Franklin, that they were atheists or agnostic. This also is false. In fact, it is an outright misrepresentation of the facts.

The reality is that Adams was a Unitarian, Sherman was a professor of religion at Yale and very active in his local church in New Haven, and not a lot is known about Lee’s religious beliefs. Jefferson and Franklin were both admitted Deists.

Deism is described as:

“the belief that there is a God that created the physical universe but does not interfere with it. It is related to a religious philosophy and movement that derives the existence and nature of God from reason. (The mention of God in this article is meant more as a Creator than as the Abrahamic God.) It takes no position on what God may do outside the universe.”

So as you can see, under this definition, which is a definition that is accepted in theological circles, just being a deists does not make one an atheist. Sadly, the legacy of Jefferson and Franklin have fallen prey to the self-serving agendas of those who are a part of the atheistic lobby just as much as they have fallen prey to those in the religious lobby.

But on a more practical matter, of the writers of the Declaration of Independence, just as with the signers of the United States Constitution, the VAST majority of those men were members of the Masonic order, as am I. The very first requirement to becoming a Freemason is that you must affirm, on penalty of expulsion, that you believe in a Supreme Being. And the screening process 200 years ago, just after the Masonic reformation in the early 1700’s, was far stricter than it is in these days.

In short, if there was even the slightest chance that a candidate for membership did NOT believe in God, that person would NOT have been admitted for membership into the Order. So again, in order for Jefferson or Franklin to become Masons, they HAD to have some sort of a belief in some God. No matter what God it was.

With all that said, there were and are spiritual principles written into the fabric of the documents that created the United States. I say spiritual for a reason. I refer back to the last podcast, “The Difference Between Religion and Spirituality” where we defined the difference between the two.

Therefore, while it may be accurate to say that the authors of the Declaration and Constitution avoided religious doctrine, which is one of the reasons this country was founded in the first place, to separate itself from being overrun by religious dogma, the spiritual principles which these men shared, were a different story.

Just in case you haven’t listened to the last podcast yet, and you should!, I will repeat one aspect.

Religion and spirituality are NOT the same thing. They are two parts of the same whole, but religion is more concerned with the rules, whereby spirituality is more concerned with the individuals relationship with whatever God they believe in, and thereby, are not always beholden to religious rules. Therefore, the Bible is a function of religion, but not always a function of spirituality. It is entirely possible for one to be spiritual and not religious, and sadly, many people are religious, but not spiritual.

Many of the laws of this country are influenced by both religious and spiritual principles. Some are universal. Such as do not kill, do not steal and the like. Crimes against the personage of an individual have their roots in both accepted religious and spiritual principles.

However, when you deal with the legislation of morality, which is what the Defense of Marriage Act is, you get into a grey area. While my religion may say homosexuality is wrong, my spirituality says it is not. As I mentioned in the last podcast, for me, the more important relationship for me is my relationship with spirituality. My relationship with religion has almost always been problematic.

Therefore, I reject the notion that the laws of this country should be based on Biblical religious principles. Or the principles of any religious body. Jesus Himself admonished His followers not to follow the letter of the law but the spirit of the Law. The Apostle Paul is quoted as saying if you follow the spirit, you are not under the law. Therefore, given the words of these two, how can we say that our spirit tells us that who someone else Loves is wrong? And moreover, how they chose to express that Love is not only wrong, but that it is really any of our business.

As I have mentioned, I have not been fortunate enough as of yet, to perform a gay wedding. I have been scheduled for a couple, but invariably, those have not panned out. But as a man of faith, as a religious official, as a spiritual being, I feel I would be dishonoring not only myself, but God, if I were to say that purely based on sexual preference, I could not or should not unite two people in marriage.

Of course, as a minister, I am bound by the laws of the state. So I could not perform a legal ceremony. Which is the genesis of our problem.

The fact that I am prevented from uniting two people in marriage simply due to their gender is completely ridiculous to me. I am not prevented, for example, from marrying two people who are drunk and just met 5 days ago. I am not prevented from marrying people who are just getting married to share health benefits. I am not prevented by law from marrying someone who has HIV or AIDS and did not inform their partner. I am not prevented from marrying someone, who under the seal of the clergy confidentiality rule, confesses to me that they murdered their intended spouses family members, or maybe even raped their prospective spouse.

I am not prevented by law from marrying two people who are doing it just for kicks. Nor am I prevented by law from marrying someone who may only be doing so to get someone’s money. I am not prevented by law from marrying someone who just got a divorce this morning and wants to get remarried this afternoon. Nor am I prevented by law from marrying someone who has been an admitted and serial adulterer. Or marrying someone whose sole purpose is so they can have guilt free sex.

But I am prevented by law from marrying two people who have been together for 10 years and have built a solid relationship based on mutual respect and Love. I can’t marry those individuals if both of them are male or both of them are female. In the eyes of the law, and according to the letter of the law, it would be illegal of me to perform such a union and I could potentially face jail time for performing such a ceremony. If I were still associated with my former denomination, officiating the ceremony of a gay couple would get me kicked out, but any of the other examples would be perfectly acceptable.

Because the other stuff isn’t against God. Or is it?

To take it a step further, I am not prevented from performing the ceremony of a homosexual and a heterosexual. So I guess, technically speaking, gays CAN get married. Just not to each other.

Of course, with the examples of those I am allowed to marry, it is within my power to bow out. But those unions would be legal and binding. It’s illegal to get married just to get citizenship in this country. It’s illegal to get married to commit fraud. Yet, if you proclaim you Love someone, even if you don’t mean it, it’s hard to disprove that you didn’t Love someone.

At the end of the day, that is what all of this should be about, right? Love.

Someone on the same listserv I mentioned earlier said that marriage is a religious construct. Sadly, he was completely wrong. Marriage, as a relationship dynamic, predates almost every religion in existence. Our notions of marriage as a function of Love, is a modern concept, not an ancient one. Even in religious texts, the majority of marriages reflected are more of a function of business or status rather than emotional connect. This is not to say Love was not a factor, because at times it was. However, marriage in the 21st century is completely different than it was, say, five thousand years ago.

In Ancient Egypt and also later, in Ancient Rome, marriages were a societal function where they were regulated by the state, not the prevailing religious edicts of the time. Some speculate that the Egyptians were the first culture to develop rules and codes of conduct regarding marriage, with older civilizations such as the Babylonians, the Mesopotamians and the like, had no such formalized rules. Even their notions of religious impact on marriage were much different.

As marriage evolved, it became more of a business model, to establish bloodlines, or keep businesses in a family. As we now know, it was not uncommon in some cultures, namely Egypt, for siblings to marry to secure said bloodlines. Arranged marriages became the norm in parts of India and other Asian countries, where Love was irrelevant. At a certain point many, many cultures around the world had a policy or arranged marriages, again, where Love was not the consideration. As we are well aware, this is a trend that continues to this very day.

As time progressed, marriage became more of a contract than an enjoyable dynamic one looked forward to. However, as time progressed, religious dogma did creep into the individual relationship and, in yet another measure of control, sought to dictate how marriage should be treated and handled.

Going back a few hundred years, if you watched the recent Showtime cable series “The Tudors,” you saw the dramatization of how Henry VIII’s entire reign hinged upon his marital status, and the churches approval or disapproval of his choice in a wife. Again, Love was not the determining factor. For Henry, it was the production of a male heir.

Royal families like The Tudors routinely arranged marriages not because one noble would make a great Love match for another noble, but because it would ensure the paths of power, regulate the bloodline, and control the fates of the countries where they rules. At the end of the day, while Love was sometimes the cause, Love was proven to be irrelevant.

Yet, in today’s culture, especially American and Western society, marriage is all about Love. We are not supposed to marry someone unless we Love them – truly, madly and deeply. From a societal basis, if someone was to admit publicly that they did not Love their spouse, one of the first questions that will be asked of them is, “Well, why did you marry them?”

We have taken marriage from a business contract and breeding program to one that is supposed to specifically embody the elements of Love. The thinking is, you can’t truly be married in the eyes of God unless you completely and fully are in Love with the person whom you are to marry.

Which is what makes the whole debate against gay marriage ridiculous. Because at the end of the day, what we are really saying is that the law has the right to dictate how two people handle and celebrate their Love. And that the notion of God being a God of Love, basically goes out of the window. Thus, rendering futile the entire premise of the Christian scripture saying “For God so Loved the world that He gave His only begotten son so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish, but have eternal life.”

If you are a Christian who dares to say that Jesus didn’t die for gay people to marry, my response is, how do you know? When did Jesus come and tell you in a face to face meeting who He specifically came to save and who He didn’t. Additionally, I will ask for you to provide proof of that conversation so we can be sure we are all on the same page.

If you can’t do that, then you don’t know exactly what the motivations were aside from what you assume scripture says. The Religious Right truly needs to stop trying to speak for God and saying what God and/or Jesus would or would not want.

So even with the previously mentioned scripture, a God fearing, Bible believing, Christian homosexual is condemned to this so-called Hell just because this person is oriented towards people of the same sex. Christians must always remember what Jesus said, that we are to Love our neighbors as ourselves. Therefore, to deny our neighbors is to deny ourselves. This is not solely a Christian concept, but also one with Karmic implications. That which we do to others, we actually do to ourselves.

Therefore, regardless of whether or not you a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, Atheist, Agnostic or confused, supporting the Defense of Marriage Act puts us all on a very slippery slope.

To be honest, the very title of this law, Defense of Marriage, offends me. What exactly are we defending marriage from? Has there been a war declared on marriage, similar to the war on drugs that we have not been made aware? Are evil forces from a foreign land planning a hostile invasion designed to keep marriage hostage? Are the Masons or the Illuminati conspiring to restrict marriage in some sinister and evil way?

The whole “defending marriage” concept suggests that there is some sort of danger on the horizon. I have yet to hear anyone give a valid and practical reason as to why gays getting married threatens marriage as a whole. I mentioned the slippery slope issue a moment ago, and some of the gay marriage foes use the same terminology, but their examples are ridiculous.

They claim that gay marriages will lead to polygamist marriages, people marrying their dogs, or maybe, people not getting married at all. They claim it will run up health care costs, that it will create an increased tax burden on tax payers. Oh, and let’s not forget the negative impact on the children. Gay couples will be able to adopt children, homosexuality will be taught in schools, then cats and dogs will begin to co-exist peacefully, the sky will turn purple and monkey’s will fly out of the collective butts of the legislators in Washington.

I am sorry, I was being sarcastic. I digress.

But the children issue is a big deal among the anti-gay marriage crowd. They fear that there will be a greater increase of single parent homes, larger than what already occurs at the hand of heterosexual marriage. That exposure to homosexuality in the home will somehow automatically create more homosexual children. Which makes me wonder, how are homosexuals created in the first place, since they ideally come from heterosexual homes? Wouldn’t the heterosexual influence have created only heterosexual children?

The reality is, there is no verified psychological evidence which shows or suggests that homosexual parents pose an inherent risk to children. In fact, the defining factor is children growing up in a Loving, caring, supportive home. If those items are in place, then the sexuality of the parents is irrelevant.

Let’s face it. The ideal relationship model in Western culture is a white man married to a white a woman with 2.5 kids, a white picket fence, a two car garage which contains a Lexus SUV and a mini-van, a dog named Rover and a cat named Fluffy with a combined income of $142,00 a year. That is the ideal of what marriage consists of. Maybe I exaggerate a bit, but you get my point.

The problem is, that relationship model is not perfect. Monogamous heterosexual relationships don’t always work. Statistics bear this fact out. If they worked, then the divorce rate would be down to zero, not over 50%. Domestic abuse would be non-existent. There would be little or no children born out of wedlock.

In short, when it comes to the ideal relationship model, we have been sold a bill of goods and are expected to follow a relationship dynamic that doesn’t always work. Therefore, by casting a negative light upon homosexual relationships because of a faulty understanding of Judeo-Christian scripture, we have created an atmosphere where ignorance and intolerance are allowed to not only exist, but breed and foster.

Was it not Dr. King who said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” More than anything else in this debate, we are dealing with not only issues of equity and fairness, but justice. To prevent individuals from marrying based on who they sleep with is an injustice. It is an injustice to enforce a faulty and biased relationship model and then hold it up as perfect when it is convenient.

This is not to say that monogamous relationships don’t work, because many do. And there is nothing inherently wrong with monogamy or heterosexuality. So my annoyance, if you will, does not come from a personal level, but it comes from a practical one. The fact that we are dealing with choice. That I affirm that consenting adults have the right to choose what relationship dynamic works best for them, regardless of what others think or believe.

We supposedly have a free society, where we are supposed to enjoy certain freedoms and liberties. The oft quoted preamble of our own Declaration of Independence bares repeating:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If indeed, as the preamble states, all men are created equal, then we must accept the fact that all men are actually created equal. The path of American history has plainly showed us that the term “all men” did not just apply to white, heterosexual, Christian men. That “all men” includes not only white women, but also black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American men and women – along with children. That our collective creator, among other things, created us with the right to pursue liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If the pursuit of a happy, secure and Loving relationship does not qualify in that statement, then I seriously do not know what does. That a document, acknowledged as one of the most important and brilliant writings in the world, explicitly allows for the pursuit of happiness, along with life and liberty. Which says to me, that to enjoy MY life with a degree of liberty means I have the inherent right, endowed upon me by MY Creator, to pursue MY happiness. This not only applies to myself, but to every man, woman and child who is a citizen of the United States.

Therefore, I affirm, we all should affirm, that ALL people have the same inherent right to experience that happiness in a Loving manner. Which means a homosexual has the same rights to happiness as heterosexuals. Which means that the poor have the same rights as the rich. That in the eyes of this document, all of us are created equal. In this so-called shining example of democracy, we all have the same opportunities.

Unless you are gay and want to get married.

Coretta Scott King, wife of Dr. King was quoted as saying:

"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny . . . I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be. I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy."

If we claim that the United States as a democratic nation, which isn’t the case but that is another subject, then we must act with a democratic spirit. That spirit does not call for allowing one group of people to have rights the other doesn’t. Even if, and especially if you try to justify it through religion, which should have no role in the decision to begin with. Therefore, if we were to make this a truly secular decision, perhaps we might start seeing different results. That is not the sign of democratic ideals. In a true democracy, or even a representative republic like the United States, equality among it’s citizens is paramount.

The moment we begin to legislate relationships between consenting adults, and suggest that because of religious prejudice, because that is what it is, that we have the right to deny them the same basic freedoms that we all enjoy and cherish, we make it easier for the same to be done to us.

But if we ARE going to allow this to be a religious decision, then let’s do so with the primary religious principle of them all. The principle that binds all religions together, that is supposed to motivate all people of faith, and that all followers of their given religion are supposed not only support but uphold, which is Love.

If Love is the driving force in our lives and if Love is that thing which creates unbridled hope, unmatched optimism, and a very special type of peace, then how can any of us, in good conscience want to deny another person the opportunity to experience and practice their Love in a similar manner.

When we here at A Love Movement state that it is Love That Makes The Difference, it is not just some trite phrase. It is a statement not only of our truth, but the truth we wish to spread to others. Love does indeed make the difference. And because of that Love, to deny another person from experiencing that Love in a manner in which fulfills their soul, which does no harm to anyone, which is essentially between the relevant parties, why on earth is it anyone else’s business.

The truth of the matter is that we have no business trying to legislate Love. We have no business dictating to consenting adults the manner in which they handle their private relationships. This applies to heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals, transgendered, polyamorous and the list goes on. If the relationship dynamic is not harmful to anyone, if it does not impact anyone aside from those involved with the relationship, then why, again, is it anyone’s business.

I uphold marriage as a wonderful institution. I was married once and I hope to be married one day again. Of course, that calls into question my sanity, yet, the institution of marriage is a good one. If done correctly. Speaking as a divorced person, I didn’t do it correctly the first time, but I am hoping to correct my previous mistakes. So even though I support the notion of gay marriage, doesn’t mean I am opposed to so-called traditional marriage. Quite the opposite. As someone who has performed over 16 weddings, I can attest to the fact that I believe in marriage.

But more than marriage, I believe in Love. I believe that Love is the greatest experience of any human being. I believe that it is Love that is an unalienable right, which allows us to live our lives, to appreciate liberty and to truly appreciate and pursue happiness.

So instead of a Defense of Marriage Act, what we need is a Defense of Love Act. We need to defend Love from those forces and entities that seek to restrict and obscure Love in whatever fashion they may. We need to uphold Love as the prime expression of the human condition. We need to defend Love against the religious zealots, the conservative extremists, and those who are against real freedom. We need to defend Love against those who seek to restrict Love, restrict happiness, restrict the freedoms of liberty.

How can we uplift our people, cure the ills that plague us, promote a healthier mental attitude for all, if we do not defend Love. If we can minimize and marginalize Love, then we are acting against our very nature. It doesn’t matter if you are a person of faith or a person of reason. Our core is Love. We all experience Love. We all seek to embrace Love. Even when we don’t want to. Whether you believe Love is a gift from God or a natural emotional expression, Love is the important issue here.

And if you are comfortable with someone coming to you and dictating who you can or cannot Love, then be my guest. However, if you are like me, and affirm that you have the right to pursue and engage in healthy, Loving relationships, regardless of so-called religious dogma or narrow minded thinking, then join with me, and the other members of A Love Movement and defend Love against the forces who seek to make a mockery of the crucial issues we hold near and dear.

Good news to share

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 03:16:31 GMT

Micro-Lenders Help Finance Third World Entrepreneurs - $25 at a time

See the video -- http://potw.news.yahoo.com/s/potw/37837/the-10-million-giveaway/

Then check their site! http://kiva.org

Americans changing religions at a high rate, survey finds

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:58:09 GMT

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080225/us_time/americasunfaithfulfaithful

America's Unfaithful Faithful

By DAVID VAN BIEMA 1 hour, 7 minutes ago

A major new survey presents perhaps the most detailed picture we've yet had of which religious groups Americans belong to. And its big message is: blink and they'll change. For the first time, a large-scale study has quantified what many experts suspect: there is a constant membership turnover among most American faiths. America's religious culture, which is best known for its high participation rates, may now be equally famous (or infamous) for what the new report dubs "churn."

The report, released today by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, is the first selection of data from a 35,000- person poll called the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. Says Pew Forum director Luis Lugo, Americans "not only change jobs, change where they live, and change spouses, but they change religions too. We totally knew it was happening, but this survey enabled us to document it clearly."

According to Pew, 28% of American adults have left the faith of their childhood for another one. And that does not even include those who switched from one Protestant denomination to another; if it did, the number would jump to 44%. Says Greg Smith, one of the main researchers for the "Landscape" data, churn applies across the board. "There's no group that is simply winning or simply losing," he says. "Nothing is static. Every group is simultaneously winning and losing."

For some groups, their relatively steady number of adherents over the years hides a remarkable amount of coming and going. Simply counting Catholics since 1972,for example, you would get the impression that its population had remained fairly static - at about 25% of adult Americans (the current number is 23.9%). But the Pew report shows that of all those raised Catholic, a third have left the church. (That means that roughly one out of every 10 people in America is a former Catholic, and that ex-Catholics are almost as numerous as the America's second biggest religious group, Southern Baptists.) But Catholicism has made up for the losses by adding converts (2.6% of the population) and, more significantly, enjoying an influx of new immigratns, mostly Hispanic.

An even more extreme example of what might be called "masked churn" is the relatively tiny Jehovah's Witnesses, with a turnover rate of about two-thirds. That means that two-thirds of the people who told Pew they were raised Jehovah's Witnesses no longer are - yet the group attracts roughly the same number of converts. Notes Lugo, "No wonder they have to keep on knocking on doors."

The single biggest "winner," in terms of number gained versus number lost, was not a religious group at all, but the "unaffiliated" category. About 16% of those polled defined their religious affiliation that way (including people who regarded themselves as religious, along with atheists and agnostics); only 7% had been brought up that way. That's an impressive gain, but Lugo points out that churn is everywhere: even the unaffiliated group lost 50% of its original membership to one church or another.

The report does not speculate on the implications of its data. But Lugo suggests, "What it says is that this marketplace is highly competitive and that no one can sit on their laurels, because another group out there will make [its tenets] available" for potential converts to try out. While this dynamic "may be partly responsible for the religious vitality of the American people," he says, "it also suggests that there is an institutional loosening of ties," with less individual commitment to a given faith or denomination.

Lugo would not speculate on whether such a buyer's market might cause some groups to dilute their particular beliefs in order to compete. There are signs of that in such surveys as one done by the Willow Creek megachurch outside Chicago, which has been extremely successful in attracting tens of thousands of religious "seekers." An internal survey recently indicated much of its membership was "stalled" in their spiritual growth, Lugo allowed that "it does raise the question of, once you attract these folks, how do you root them within your own particular tradition when people are changing so quickly."

The Pew report has other interesting findings; the highest rates for marrying within one's own faith, for example, are among Hindus (90%) and Mormons (83%)). The full report is accessible at the Pew Forum site.

View this article on Time.com

*slightly cross-posted*

My Mother, and Other Things

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:27:42 GMT

As all or most of you know, I have recently realized within myself how the law of attraction works. Since this understanding has come to me, I have had nothing but a desire but to share this knowledge with every one of my friends, family members and even the strangers on the street I come across. I realize everyone isn't as receptive to this information, especially in the vocabulary that it is presented, and I haven't always used other vocabulary to help people understand it in a different way, but I have had a breakthrough with one or two with you by using other vocabulary, and found that you believe in the law of attraction when it is presented in this alternative vocabulary. This was the same fear that I had in exposing the law of attraction to my mother. What I failed to realize was that my excitement was so strong, that, when it came to my mother, she latched onto it right away. In her own words, she said that she had known this all her life, but didn't realize that she knew it. One of our little sayings we have with each other is "Now I know I know, and I know you know I know." It both amuses us, and we understand it, and it uplifts us.

Read More

[RUS] Prosto Tak! [ENG] It is simple so!(Variant: Without A Reason)

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:26:11 GMT

Просто так!	It is simple so! (Variant: Without A Reason)
Диалог: -- Это мне? -- Да! -- А за что? -- Просто так!	Dialogue: "This to me?" "For you!" "And for what?" "It is simple so!"
Медвежонок сказал: -- А у меня ничего нет!	The Bear cub has told: "But, I don't have anything!"

Crosspost: http://community.livejournal.com/ru_cwg/12744.html

New community I started

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:24:15 GMT

I started a new community today called wtf_humans. Here is the info about it:

Have you ever have those moments when you're embarrassed to be human because of things others have done? Like to rant (occasionally or often) about thy fellow human being? Then you've found the perfect place! Rants, news clips, pictures, videos... anything that makes you angry with/embarrassed at humanity, feel free to share! Anything goes, as long as it makes you even briefly ashamed of being human (for real or figuratively speaking).

Theist, atheist, anti-theist, agnostic, whatever your philosophical inclinations (if any), all are welcome. Joining is instant. I just ask you follow the rules.

Hope to see you there!
---Fay

X-posted to heck and back

Freerice.com

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:09:21 GMT

Free Rice

For every vocab question you get right, they donate rice to help end world hunger!
Some of these I don't even know, but I'm looking them up on dictionary.com :)

Inspired to have huggle fun!

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:18:29 GMT

Seen the Free Hugs video yet? http://www.freehugscampaign.org/

I got a brainwave today, after a pretty crappy morning, and the idea washed away all the ickiness that was my morning. We have a Health Fair here every year, the booths are free to anybody offereing free health related anything to the public. So I'm organizing a Free Hugs booth! Woot! I can hardly wait. I just hope I can find some volunteers.

Anyway, had to share 'cause I'm so excited!

Vintef, Goddess of PlayPlayPlay!

Sun, 23 Sep 2007 05:26:00 GMT

My girlfriend (lillakat) told me that once, an ex-boyfriend of hers who was especially talented at channeling, was one day channeling the names of Deities throughout the Omniverse (this and all the other universes) who had died from being forgotten (but not what they were Deities *of*). And one of the last ones was "Vintef." When my girlfriend heard that name, she felt some energy there. Vintef wasn't quite dead. Lilla said, "Oooh, there's some energy there. That's the Goddess of PlayPlayPlay!" She says Vintef is very hyper, and very much like an exciteable child who loves people and loves play. :-)

Not sure what universe or what corner of this universe Vintef was originally from, but now we've been keeping that one alive by remembering her and speaking of/to/with Her. So I decided to spread that name around to help Her out. :-)

From Russia with LOVE :-)

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:50:40 GMT

Hi!

I'm creator of russian CWG-community ru_cwg

I don't speak English well (right now! :-))) ), but I hope - I learn it.

Good luck to all! :-)
"We are all one"

WEIGHT LOSS JOURNEY AIDED BY THE WISDOM FROM CWD

Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:34:57 GMT

THIS WAS AN EXTRA POST TO MY REGULAR WEIGHT LOSS BLOG --- A TRIP TO THE MOUNTAINS IN AN EFFORT TO FIND PASSION IN SOMETHING OTHER THAN FOOD, AND THIS BEAUTIFUL DAY WAS A SUCCESS.

MY OTHER VIDEOS ARE LOCATED AT: www.youtube.com/user/chubio

lots of positive thoughts and energy to all!

*HUG*

Don

a worldwide hour of meditation

Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:32:07 GMT

http://www.firethegrid.org (Pass it on)

To recreate us (all things go, all things go)

Wed, 30 May 2007 09:22:54 GMT

This Sufjan Stevens song really reminds me of the message and energy in Conversations With God - thought I should share:

(the video doesn't quite do justice to the song, but this is the only easily embedable version I could find)

Fire The Grid

Fri, 25 May 2007 14:34:11 GMT

http://www.firethegrid.org

Someone on my friendslist recently posted a link to this site and while reading it through I just felt the words written there rang true for me. Please take a look at the site, I'm not good at explaining things I rather let them speak for themself.

We all have an impact on the world. If we unite it's even stronger.

And, quite unrelated, is anyone else of you in the Messenger Circle on Neale's site?

Alexander rants.

Sat, 12 May 2007 16:29:51 GMT

(Quickly for those who don't know: I am a Multiple, and one of the people in my system is named Alexander Antonin. He likes to rant when he gets upset at something. Here he has a rant about children/adults that kind of veers onto a topic that's more on topic here. X-posted on adultchild. Oh by the way, Alexander mixes CWG with LaVeyan Satanism into a peculiar sort of theistic Satanism.)

People speak of adults and children like they're two different groups... like they're butterflies and catapillars. Yeah right! There's no significant difference between children and adults except that adults tend to be larger and have smaller heads in comparison to their bodies. The physical differences are so insignificant as to be meaningless.

In this existence we call humanity, it's the blind leading the blind. Adults think they know what they're doing and they don't. But will they admit it? HA! As if. The games adults play are no different from those that kids play, except that they've learned subtlety, complexity, and they cheat at every chance they get. There's also the added element of betrayal, which to a lesser extent exists in the children's world, too.

I hate peoples' lies. No one can be fracking honest, even with themselves. Then they get all upset when kids lie. GUESS WHAT, DUMKAUPFS: YOU TAUGHT IT TO THEM! "Do as I say and not as I do," HA! Like that'll ever work.

Children grow up with the issues they do because their parents are fracking immature bastards and not even mature enough to admit it. I think people who know they're childlike adults are - by being honest about it - actually MORE mature than the average adult. Not that they don't have their own lies they tell themselves and others. Not that they don't still make a distinction between adults and children - and then add the further distinction of "childlike adult" into the mix. Let's all just be honest for ten minutes: adults are just oversized children.

Now what can we do about this? If we're all blind in this life, how can we go on? Well, I can tell you one thing: we'll have to change our ways. Humanity has let its fear and confusion control it and drive it insane. Let me just define some terms here:

* "Crazy" is having issues. I have not met anyone who is not crazy. It is not even possible to be conscious and not have issues? I think not. Even Jesus had issues.

* "Sane" is when you're crazy and you're fully aware that you're crazy, and are either attempting to fix the problem or are wishing you knew how.

* "Insane" is being crazy and being oblivious to the fact that you're crazy. Insane people think they're completely sane and sober (by clinical definitions), and that everyone else is insane. Insane people are convinced that their view of reality is true and real. This is why they tend not to seek help from others.

Humanity is, by these definitions, collectively insane. Most individuals are insane. Send in the men in white coats! We're gonna need one hell of a rubber room!

Only those who are well aware of having issues/being crazy are truly sane. Want more evidence? A common defintion of insanity I hear is "doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results each time." If that isn't also a perfect definition for humanity, then I will eat my hat.

What we need to do? We need to realize that what we're doing, thinking, believing, and being IS NOT WORKING. We need to try something else. We need new models of God, for one thing. We live in the 20th century... artificial consciousness isn't far off, and we're exploring the universe vicariously through probes and telescopes. Most of us have a highly evolved view of the external universe, but the way we work with other people hasn't changed significantly since Babylonian times, and we have a medieval conception - at best - of God. Even Atheists need a new conception of God. Because it's easy to be an atheist when the only conception of God anyone's ever come up with makes no fracking sense at all.

How's this for a new God: It's not an entity with any kind of form or body. A formless consciousness and energy that may or may not have created the universe... and it matters not whether it did or not, because now it unifies it. But it wants nothing from us, needs nothing from us. It either doesn't care one way or another, or doesn't worry about anything. Neither does it meddle. And why should it meddle? What significance does our tiny mortal existence have to God? ABSOLUTELY NONE. If we all died tomorrow, the universe wouldn't even notice. Or if it did, it might just be like "Honey have you - Hey, what's that over there? Oh, they all died! Awww... how sad. Oh well. Now as I was saying..."

Because only someone insane can hold as true in their mind two opposing concepts that cancel each other out, to describe an entity. A loving God that is also wrathful? What an oxymoron! Especially for a supposedly immortal and omniscent being. We truly are limited beings trying to put our own limits on something that is limitless. And it's irritating me.

Anyway, I strayed from the point. The point is, we need to try something new, on all levels of our life. Because the things we're doing now are NOT WORKING.

Spreading the word of CWG with a new icon

Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:14:07 GMT

I have a new default icon that now spreads some neat messages of a CWG sort. *Giggles wickedly*

Can you help me help my friend?

Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:15:11 GMT

I have a dear sweet internet friend who is homebound. She is a teenager with Juvenile Diabetes. Her entire social life is online. She's lonely. She'd like a boyfriend. I'm looking but I'm not finding an online community for homebound people with illness. Anybody know of any? She needs to socialize with people who understand what it's like to be homebound. While she role plays online a lot and talks to a lot of people, they all lead relatively normal, healthy lives. They can't understand how much she depends on her internet friendships and as a result she gets hurt a lot.

Know where she can go???

Unrighteous, filthy sinners?

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 04:37:56 GMT

I accidentally watched a few minutes of The 700 Club the other day and realized that maybe I should watch it every once in awhile. So I've been tuning into it. Mostly it makes me want to run screaming from the room .... but tonight there was the most wonderful story about a bum--stinking with urine, street filth, and alcohol--who comes into a church in some big city somewhere and gets saved. Now, the preacher sees him coming, it's Easter, and thinks sarcastically, "Oh jeez, what a great way to end the Easter sermon, with some bum coming up to ask for money." But the bum (who was being interviewed as well as the other people involved in the story) just wants Jesus. The preacher starts crying, ashamed of himself and glad for the opportunity before him. He says the stench coming off the bum suddenly becomes the most beautiful perfume he's ever known. The bum lays his head on the preacher's chest, they embrace, and the bum is saved.

Okay. I'm not Christian. But I acknowledge Christianity as a beautiful path. This story made me cry. It made my heart swell. Even though I don't believe that we must be saved from anything in order to be accepted by a god who exists separately from us I recognize that there are many great things about Christianity. Then, as I'm wiping the tears from my face, this woman comes on the screen to compare this story to the biblical parable of the prodigal son. She follows this up with, "We are all unrighteous, filthy sinners." Well, my tears dried right up and I changed the channel. My problem with Christianity is that it wants to tear you down to make you whole again. In order to come to Christ through the Christian faith you must admit your worthlessness and your unrighteousness. Only then can you be saved.

Saved from what??????? If there is unrighteousness in the universe, it is there because God/All That Is created it. The filth in this universe could not exist if God/Source didn't will it so. Nothing can exist that is against God's/The One's will, how could it? How could anyone/thing go against the will of God? Nothing can displeasure Source, it would be impossible, because nothing we can do or not do would be possible if it weren't for Goddess/God/Source.

For me, everything each one of us does is the will of god because we are all sparks of god. Yes, this means pedophiles are doing the will of god. This also means that doctors, healers, teachers, even your postman, are doing the will of god. Your will is god's will because we and all that exists are god.

So why don't we all just run out and steal, rape, murder, and generally immerse ourself in "bad" pleasures if everything we do is the will of god? We can do whatever we want. But in all things we have a choice, do we want to work from a lower source (aka: evil, sin, bad, negative, primal, animal) or do we want to work from a higher source (aka: good, positive, loving, compassionate, productive, useful)? We have a choice between doing no harm or causing harm. We have a choice between leaving the world better than we found it or leaving the world stained and tainted when we leave it. The world is made up diversity, positive to negative and everything in between. You can hate the negative, but remember that you wouldn't know what positive was if you didn't know what negative was. Also, remember that hate is an extremely negative emotion. Think about the irony of hating hate.

My mother's entire spirituality was summed up in these few words, "The universe has a tendency to right itself." I thought it was a lovely sentiment, but that was all the credit I gave to it. Then, a few years after her death, I read that scientists had discovered that space had an up and a down! Mom's words came back to me. She was right! If planets, stars, and space dust have a tendency to right themselves in the void, maybe even us tiny, unrighteous, filthy sinners have a tendency to right ourselves or, at least, to want to right ourselves.

Sure, the tendency of a few infamous people is to do exactly the opposite, Hitler, Hussain, and bin Laden to name a few.... but even the worst criminals among us tend to WANT to do what's right. With the right cultivation and support, they can. What if it isn't about sin? What if it's about the opportunity to grow in the right direction?

Even a tiny little seed knows up from down and the right way from the wrong way. I proved this in an accidental experiment. I germinated some Mountain Laurel seeds and assumed that the little thingy that sprung forth from them was the plant, it didn't occur to me that those little growths were the roots. So I planted those seeds as if the little thingy was the plant to be. They didn't come out of the ground. I waited and waited. Finally I uncovered the seeds only to discover that the little thingies had curled up and over the seeds and were now growing back down into the earth. They knew, quite naturally, which way was the right way. When they grow into trees I'll have to remember to call them my upside down Mountain Laurels.

We know, naturally, right from wrong, sin from virtue, harm from harmless. All we need is the right cultivation, the right mentors, the right information and the right support at the right time. This is not a hard and fast rule of the universe, it's simply the natural tendency.

Unrighteous, filthy, sinners? I think not. Just the occasional confused seed.

Geo-centrism is not extinct

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:44:12 GMT

All I can say is, "there are still people in the Western world who think the sun revolves around the Earth???" And now they're trying to force this lunacy on kids!

TX Mulls Bills On Fake History Bible Classes & Fake Reproductive Medicine
By Bruce Wilson

Posted on April 3, 2007, Printed on April 4, 2007

http://www.alternet .org/bloggers/ wilson/50090/

A bill being considered today by the House Public Education Committee of the Texas State Legislature would mandate that all high schools in Texas offer elective Bible Classes using a controversial course curriculum from the National Council On Bible Curriculum In Public Schools (NCBCPS) which, says the group, is used in over 1,000 high schools in 36 states and which also has been accused of being partisan, religiously sectarian, academically shoddy, and historically incorrect.

In a recent, notorious incident that casts a peculiar light on the legislation being considered by the Texas legislature, House Bill 1287 was introduced by Texas State Rep. Warren Chisum, who gained a national profile in February 2007 for distributing a memo, also circulated in several other US State legislatures, that alleged the Theory of Evolution to be a religion based in Jewish Kabbalism and referenced a website rebutting Copernicus and claiming the Earth does not rotate and is orbited every 24 hours by the Sun, the Solar System and the entire known universe. That latter view, known as "Geocentrism", is also held by some leaders on the American Christian right who advocate the imposition of Christian theocratic government.

Beyond the controversy over the integrity of the NCBCPS curriculum itself, if Texas House Bill 1287 gets signed into law, argues capitalannex. com's Vince Liebowitz, a Texas based journalist, newspaper editor, and former Texas Democratic County Chairman, the legislation would "force many school districts, especially small districts where teachers are already pushed to the limit, to increase staff sizes or drop electives. Since many small districts are limited in electives already, it's likely they will have to hire new staff simply to follow this state mandate. It is an unfunded mandate, in addition to everything else." .
The NCBCPS curriculum has come under considerable academic criticism from Biblical scholars, most recently in a new, ongoing expose of dubious and even fraudulent history presented in the curriculum , by a historian who specializes in debunking historical fabrication and distortion found in revisionist interpretations of US history which claim America was founded as a Christian nation. In 2005, a widely endorsed study by Biblical historian Dr. Mark Chancy of Southern Methodist University stated that the NCBCPS Bible class curriculum advocates a narrow sectarian perspective taught with materials plagued by shoddy research, blatant errors and discredited or poorly cited sources . Dr. Chancey says he supports nonpartisan, nonsectrian, academically rigorous elective Bible classes in public schools.

In 2006, an extensive survey of the over 1,000 public schools in Texas that was a joint effort by Dr. Chancey and the Texas Freedom Network , a nonprofit organization that works to counter the Christian right, cast an unfavorable light on elective Bible classes in the 25 Texas schools that offered those in the 2005-2006 school year: "With a few notable exceptions, the public school courses currently taught in Texas often fail to meet minimal academic standards for teacher qualifications; curriculum, and academic rigor; promote one faith perspective over all others; and push an ideological agenda that is hostile to religious freedom, science and public education" . According to a 2005 story by the Texas based Baptist Standard, the NCBCPS claims its curriculum has spread more widely than the TFN/Chancy study found and is used in 52 school districts in Texas. The BCBCPS's website claims that its curriculum is currently used in 382 school districts in 37 US states.
Historian Chris Rodda, author of ";Liars For Jesus : The Religious Right's Alternate Version Of American History", has started an online debunking of the presentation of American history in the National Council On Bible Curriculum in Public Schools' Bible class curriculum and notes a range of historical inaccuracies, possible fabrications, and misquotes in the NCBCPS curriculum's presentation of United States history. Rodda is taking the unusual step, which may set a new standard for academic accountability, of posting historical source documentation she refers to in her work at her website so that other historians can authenticate her claims.

Bruce Wilson writes for Talk To Action, a blog specializing in faith and politics.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet .org/bloggers/ wilson/50090/

Forgiveness

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:18:12 GMT

Forgiveness is a concept very few of us understand. We think our biggest challenge is to forgive others for what they have done to us. But that is only the icing on the cake. It is easy to forgive others when you have already forgiven yourself. But it's impossible to forgive others if you have not forgiven yourself.
The process of forgiveness starts in your own heart. It has very little to do with others. When I forgive myself, it is not hard for me to forgive you. If I can remove the sting of blame and shame from my own heart, I can offer that gift to you. If I can see my own innocence, I can see yours too.
Most of us keep trying to back into forgiveness. We attempt to forgive other people before forgiving ourselves. That creates a real problem, because not everyone wants to be forgiven. Some people even refuse to believe they are guilty! Did you ever try to forgive someone who didn't believe they were guilty? It's impossible! No matter how hard you try, they just won't let you.
Then there are the people who feel guilty all the time. They keep coming up to you and begging your pardon, but you just can't bring yourself to forgive them. Even when you realize that you are the one in need of forgiveness, you can still put the cart before the horse. You can ask for someone else to forgive you, a friend perhaps, a priest or rabbi, perhaps even God. But that doesn't work either. You can be forgiven by hundreds of people, indeed forgiven by divine right, but it doesn't matter if you haven't forgiven yourself.
It just doesn't work to start outside ourselves with this process. Starting outside is just our way of beating around the bush, and beating ourselves up in the process. It doesn't open the door to our hearts. That door opens only when we realize we are the ones who feel guilty. We are the ones who attack and justify our attack. We are the ones who need forgiveness. And no one else can give it to us.
So, the first axiom of forgiveness is that it comes from within. It's something you must do for yourself, before you can demonstrate it to others. The next axiom is that forgiveness is not conditional, nor is it partial. Forgiveness is a wholehearted, whole-being act. It brings release from burdens, release from pain. Bargaining for forgiveness doesn't work. Yet that is exactly what we try to do:
"I'll forgive myself if I get that job or relationship I want;" or "I'll forgive you if you apologize to me first;" or "I'll forgive you, but I won't forgive him."
As long as there is some aspect of our attack we're trying to justify, forgiveness just doesn't happen. Indeed, partial forgiveness is just a subtle form of attack! Forgiveness is unconditional and impartial. It takes me out of the past and into the present.
Namaste.

An Introduction

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:09:40 GMT

Namaste. I'd like to introduce myself to this communty, since I've become one of its newest members. Name's Adam, I'm twenty-seven, and I live in NYC. I have a B.A. from Duke University, two Masters Degrees from Hunter University, and am in the middle of getting an MFA from Hunter as well. Also, I'm an intern at Random House Publishing, while attending to my schooling. I was a youth councilor for five years, and I also do what I like to call "psychic counseling" on the side.

The reason why I give my credentials here, is to emphasize the fact that, over the last four months, I've formed a CWG Wisdom Circle here in NYC. Now, although it is only a small part of what we do, the Circle invites and encourages people who feel a strong spiritual affinity with the messages and over-all theology of CWG, to please write in their questions. Any and all are most welcome to do so here, and I will give answer to them. However, I also will be posting my own entries here as well. Blessed be, Namaste.

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:22:36 GMT

Self-Abandonment

By Dr. Margaret Paul

If you feel alone, empty, anxious, depressed, hurt, angry, jealous, sad, fearful, guilty or shamed, you are abandoning yourself. In this article, discover the ways you might be abandoning yourself.

The Encarta(r) World English Dictionary defines "abandon" as: "to leave somebody or something behind for others to look after, especially somebody or something meant to be a personal responsibility."

As adults, our own wellbeing is our personal responsibility.

Do you abandon yourself, instead making others responsible for you, and then feel abandoned by others when they leave you or don't take responsibility for you?

As an adult, another person cannot abandon you, since they are not responsible for you. We can abandon a child, an ill person or an old person - someone who cannot take care of themselves. But if you are a physically healthy adult, you can be left, but you cannot be abandoned by others. Only you can abandon you.

What are the ways you might be abandoning yourself?

Judging Yourself

How often do you judge yourself with comments to yourself such as:

"You are not good enough." "You are inadequate."
"You are stupid." "You are an idiot."
"You are ugly." "You are not attractive enough."
"If you fail you are not okay."
"If someone rejects you, you are not okay."
"It's all your fault that...."
"You will never amount to anything. You are a failure. You are not reaching your potential."

...and so on.

Just as a small child feels alone and abandoned when a parent is harsh and judgmental, so our own inner child feels alone and abandoned when you judge yourself. Self judgment not only creates inner feelings of aloneness and emptiness, but it also creates feelings of anxiety, depression, anger, hurt, fear, guilt and shame. Then what do you do when you have judged yourself and created all these painful feelings?

Ignoring Your Feelings

When you feel alone, empty, anxious, depressed, hurt, angry, jealous, sad, fearful, guilty or shamed - what do you do? Do you attend to your feelings, exploring what YOU are telling yourself or doing to cause them? Or do you avoid them with some form addictive behavior, using food, alcohol, drugs, nicotine, TV, work, shopping, Internet, sex, anger, blame, and so on to avoid them?

When you ignore your feelings and instead turn to addictive behavior, you are again abandoning yourself. Once you have abandoned yourself, it is very common to project this self-abandonment onto others and feel abandoned by people or by God. Yet, as a physically healthy adult, the feeling of abandonment is being caused by you, just as most of your other painful feelings are being caused by you.

Making Others Responsible for You

Once you judge yourself and then ignore the pain you have caused, it is quite likely that you then turn to others for the love and approval that you are not giving to yourself. Your inner child - the feeling part of you - needs love, approval, and attention. When you abandon yourself with your self-judgments and ignoring your feelings, the wounded child part of you turns to others for the love you need. Because the child part of you is desperately needy for love, you likely become manipulative to get that love - getting angry and blaming, or becoming overly nice or compliant and trying to do everything right. You have handed your inner child away to others for adoption, hoping another person will give you the love you so desperately need. You become addicted to approval, attention, and/or sex.

The more you make others responsible for giving you the love, attention and approval you need, the more your inner child feels abandoned, leading to more addictive behavior to fill the emptiness and avoid the pain of your self-abandonment.

The way out of this is to start to pay attention to your feelings - to put your attention inside your body instead of always focusing outside. The moment you feel badly, notice what you are thinking or doing that is causing your pain. Your painful feelings that come from your thoughts are your inner guidance system's way of letting you know that what you are thinking is not true, and is not in your highest good.

Ask the highest part of yourself, "What is the truth?" Notice how you feel when you attend to your feelings and tell yourself the truth rather than judge yourself, ignore yourself, and make others responsible for your feelings.

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:21:13 GMT

Self Quest's Purpose and Mission

SelfQuest Educational Foundation, Inc, a 501(c)(3) non-profit foundation, is in the final stages of developing a software based self-discovery and healing process, designed for inmates and students to:

Develop self esteem and personal responsibility
Prevent and treat substance abuse
Prevent and treat domestic violence and other forms of violence
Reduce recidivism
Prevent high school dropout.

Our mission is to donate the SelfQuest program, which is contained in an interactive downloadable CD, to prisons, schools and correctional institutions and to provide trained facilitators to augment and support its use.

SelfQuest Overview

The technology presented in SelfQuest guides users through their personal history and behavior profile, helping them to become aware of their fears, limiting beliefs, and uncaring or destructive behavior. Then it takes them through the Six Steps of Inner Bonding to help them resolve both inner and relationship conflict. They learn how to access and take responsibility for their feelings, how to learn from their anxiety and difficulties, and how to access the spiritual love, truth and power that enables them to heal their self-limiting beliefs and take loving action for themselves and with others.

SelfQuest has tremendous potential for lasting impact on the community, as demonstrated by the following testimonial:

"Inner Bonding has been extremely powerful in helping me as an instructor teach very painful concepts to men who have very violent histories. It is truly remarkable how men respond and move toward taking personal responsibility for how they feel utilizing the Inner Bonding process. These men have extreme issues of control, and Inner Bonding gets to the heart of it in a very direct and healing way. Inner Bonding is perfect for correctional institutions and quite frankly I have been in the game for a long time and implemented many programs. We have been waiting for someone to put it together in such a way that inmates respond and apply the knowledge."
James Beard, Domestic Violence Substance Abuse Instructor, Sheriff's Department, Correctional Education Division, Los Angeles, CA

Each inmate and student who participate in the program will have his or her own program. The program can be utilized in any size group, depending upon computer availability. Most prisons and schools have computers available. Minimal computer skills are required. A trained facilitator will be introducing the program to each group, and working with individuals and groups as they move through the program. In addition, the trained facilitator will conduct a brief training, with all inmates and students utilizing the program, on how to support each other while learning the SelfQuest tools.

Research indicates that most violent criminals, rather than having low self-esteem, suffer from toxic self-esteem. They tend to be pathologically narcissistic, selfish, and self-centered. They think they are special, entitled, better than others, which they believe gives them the right to do what they want, even if it harms others. When anything is wrong in their lives, they blame others - their parents, society, their teachers, the justice system, and so on. They do not take responsibility for themselves. This erosion of personal responsibility in our society has had tragic consequences, and prison does little to change this. The SelfQuest program addresses these issues as well as issues of anger management.

Non-violent offenders, such as many addicts, have few coping mechanisms for feelings of fear, anxiety, and inadequacy. They often turn to substances because they know of no other way of filling their emptiness and avoiding their pain. 12 Step programs are supportive, but don't provide the actual tools for managing difficult and painful feelings. The SelfQuest program provides these tools.

The SelfQuest CD is designed to move individuals out of seeing themselves as victims of others and into personal responsibility. It is designed to move individuals out of narcissistic behavior and into caring about themselves and others.

If you wish to donate please go here and scroll down to the Donate section.