Posts Tagged ‘santa claus’

Returning to dignity: a conversation on transformation and Landmark

December 18, 2014

All creatures begin naive (presumptive and easily deceived by their elders, such as in the case of Santa Claus). With time, we develop our language skills more and more as we are conditioned by social rewards and social punishment (social threats). We learn language in order to adapt, right?

We learn what to say and how to say it, plus what does not work. So we create a persona that emphasizes certain aspects of our humanity (“compliant, good, cheerful, etc”) and de-emphasizes or suppresses certain other aspects (“inappropriate” displays of fear, disappointment, anger, and even curiosity or logic).

In my youth, I was allowed (eventually?) to question the accuracy of Santa Claus. That was not perceived as a threat by anyone (eventually?), so they did not respond with counter-threats and punishments.

In fact, I was scolded on occasion for “going along with the crowd blindly.” However, the blind conformity issue was tricky for me (and perhaps for you, too). I had to learn the 95% of the time that unquestioning blind conformity was required by the adults around me… as well as the 5% of the time that blind conformity would be ridiculed or punished by the adults (and eventually, by my peers, who had also been influenced by adults of course).

When it was “cool” to write letters to Santa, I would. When it became “uncool,” I stopped. I even joined in the chorus of people who would ridicule others for believing in Santa “too long.”

How is this related to Transformation (as in the Landmark Forum)? The “transformational programming” includes giving attention to the historical formation of a conditioned identity (what I called a persona above). When we distinguish that the conditioned identity is just an accumulation of conversations and tensions / pretenses / inauthenticities, then a remarkable opportunity for innovation emerges.

We are encouraged (in Landmark programs) to create new stories and narratives, like “a victory over the past.” We are trained to apologize for “being a jerk by reflexively making you wrong” for violating presumptive expectations and preferences.

A major focus of course is “sharing how Landmark has been valuable to me.” In later courses, we may learn to create a “probable, almost certain future” as a point of contrast or repulsion in attracting others to “the possibility of our project.” The project is presented as the access to an inspiring possibility that can avoid / alter the constructed story of the “probable, almost certain future.”

We are encouraged to explore specific new patterns of conversation and communication. We also witness (in seminars and so on) other people’s conversational momentums as well as our own. We observe various “ways of being” and the various predictable consequences of each one (plus some “unpredictable consequences”).

Is it okay to have been naive? Is it okay to have accumulated a persona (in response to the stresses of our youth)? Is it okay to have been a jerk?

Dignity is related to “being okay with my own past and present.” No actions are required “in order to” eventually qualify for dignity (“someday… maybe”). However, once dignity is “presenced,” then certain innovative actions may naturally “be given by that new way of being.”



Santa Claus is the God of paranoia

February 8, 2014
She fooled me               She lied and deceived me                                      She got me                    to do what she wanted
She schooled me          she tricked me, confused me and ruled me      as I followed her lead
“Santa Claus is the God always watching                                      so better do as I say cause the haunting
is about to begin and you’re stopping                                              your playful ways to worship holy paranoia
Wait- you’ll go to hell if you think the wrong thought.             Hey- don’t you want to earn your way to heaven?
Wait- you’ll get coal if you don’t do what you’re taught.           Hey- if you make A’s, then the world will bow in reverence.
Santa Claus is the God always watching”

I blamed her            I named her the scapegoat                            I hated her power  her presence     her confidence
I questioned             how will I fake loyalty till my escape
I was a scared boy        even terrified                I learned to hide it    or at least I tried
I was a clever man      so slow to trust              quick to find gaping holes in logic
I want to make her mad     I want prove her wrong
I want to show her that I am the smarter one
I want to cause her shame    to return her my pain
I want to watch as she prays for mercy to Santa
but I’m a clever man    I know resentment        won’t bring me any closer to heaven
so I give her respect      I withdraw contempt    I forgive her of my condemnation
Yes, she fooled me               She lied and deceived me                                      She got me                    to do what she wanted
Yes, she schooled me          she tricked me, confused me and ruled me      as I followed her lead
I was a child             an ungrateful bastard           she kept me safe     for that I thank her
She did her thing   like a million other people    like all the churches    governments and media
Santa Claus is the God always watching            Santa Claus is the God always watching
Santa Claus is the God always watching            Santa Claus is the God of paranoia
Santa Claus is the God always watching                                      so better do as I say cause the haunting
is about to begin and you’re stopping                                             your playful ways to worship holy paranoia
Wait- you’ll go to hell if you think the wrong thought.             Hey- don’t you want to earn your way to heaven?
Wait- you’ll get coal if you don’t do what you’re taught.           Hey- if you make A’s, then the world will bow in reverence.

Santa Claus is the God always watching            Santa Claus is the God always watching
Santa Claus is the God always watching            Santa Claus is the God of paranoia

Part 3: Creating a victim (and a savior)

March 4, 2013
The title page to the 1611 first edition of th...

The title page to the 1611 first edition of the Authorized Version Bible. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

1 noticing the activity of language

2 noticing that language is not perception

3 the linguistic ritual of creating a victim (and a savior)

4 creating a path from hell to heaven


So, language can form characters like in a story. One character could be the hero (who rescues the victim) and then another character could be the victim (who is victimized by the villain) and then of course some character must be the villain.

The 1972 Santa photo

The 1972 Santa photo (Photo credit: epicharmus)

Santa could be the savior or hero. The Grinch could be the villain.

Is that still clear? Does that still make sense?

Next, who would be the victim? If you are not Santa and you are not the Grinch, then who else is there for you to be, at least within the focus of that story (in the context of that story or during that ritual of the directing of noticing and perceiving through the method of symbolic language)?

English: Norfolk, Va. (Nov. 27, 2006) - Santa ...

English: Norfolk, Va. (Nov. 27, 2006) – Santa Claus welcomes children of military service members during Operation Christmas at the Army National Guard Armory. Operation Homefront, a member of America Supports You, organized the event. During the event more than 200 children had the opportunity to meet Santa Claus and receive a Christmas gift from him. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Vincent J. Street (RELEASED) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Notice that the formation of a story around a villain and a victim and a hero is just one ritual usage of language. There are many rituals like the ritual of taking kids to sit on Santa’s lap and declare what presents they want this holiday season, or the ritual of putting presents under a tree, or the ritual of talking about heroes that rescue victims from villains. Those are all just rituals- nothing more or less.

The big man himself brings up the rear at the ...

The big man himself brings up the rear at the 2009 Santa Claus Parade, Toronto. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

They are not HOLY, even if they are considered sacred within a particular culture. They are just rituals and rituals are not holy. Only God is holy.

CNN Tag line: Best Looking News

CNN Tag line: Best Looking News (Photo credit: Hugger Industries)

So, beware of those who indoctrinate you with stories of how you are victimized and, because of that, you need them to rescue you. Respect them. Notice the effectiveness of their methods and beware of vilifying those who vilify, for that is an ironic hypocrisy, a terrified panic of animosity and contempt and condemnation, an optional pattern in language that can be used to relate to others from the context of you being the hero who must save the world from the evil vilifiers that you vilify for their crime of vile, evil, vilifying.

Presidential Debate

Presidential Debate (Photo credit: SimonQ錫濛譙)

That is still operating from the same “holy trinity” (sacred trinity?) of savior, victim, and villain. Notice that entirely valid (but totally optional) trinitarian context for relating to life.


ZOG-War2 (Photo credit: MATEUS_27:24&25)

Contempt: the pinnacle of all mental illness or ill will or sin

October 16, 2012

Contempt: the pinnacle of all mental illness or ill will or sin

What is the connection between rage, madness, mental illness, contempt, and ill will? First, what is contempt?

English: Photo of Jonathan G. Meath portraying...

English: Photo of Jonathan G. Meath portraying Santa Claus. Date approximate. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Contempt is projected shame. When I am afraid to admit that I did not do something that I say “I should have done,” then there is nothing I can do to change the fact that I did not do whatever I did not do. If I condemn myself with some kind of idea that “I should have done something else,” there is no relief from that idea except for the release of that idea.

When I believe that I should have done something else but then do not want to experience the distress of facing my own self-condemnation, I may respond to any perceived threat by projecting that “should be different” accusation on to others in contempt. It is similar to blaming someone for a result that I experienced, except that blame may be “deserved,” as in “you did not tightly close the door behind you and now look what has happened!”

Contempt, like shame, cannot be easily balanced by future action. The labeling of something as “that should have never happened” is too intense to be balanced by any future action. The labeling itself either will persist or will be questioned and relax.

“Those people systematically use coercion against innocent civilians! It’s an outrage! We cannot stand by and let that happen. We need to seize the associates of those people and hold them hostage and threaten to kill them if those other people do not stop terrorizing innocent civilians.”

It’s ironic, huh? I’m not even condemning or shaming contempt, by the way, but I am noting the dangerous addictiveness of it. It is certainly something to be wary of.

Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986)

I was already exploring subjects like this (see my recent blogs) when someone recently asked me about a famous fellow named Jiddu Krishnamurti. I am familiar with him and yes I do “believe in” the kind of things that he promoted: introspection and personal responsibility as being subjects that are potentially economical (practically valuable, worthy of time and resources).

I also am clear how ridiculously strange it is that a movie like Zeitgeist would take quotes and clips of him talking about inner revolutions in language, psychology, and spirituality and then use that content to promote contempt and hysteria against “the system” or against any society or social tradition. Jiddu Krishnamurti called many social traditions silly, like I might say about literalists worshiping Santa Claus, but that kind of dismissal is not full of contempt and political rage. For a person who clearly spoke out against ill will and contempt and political rage and other mental illness such as shame to be used in the promoting of those same patterns is quite ironic, quite tragic, and yet also quite comic.

He was not saying that Santa must be defeated but that “hey by now we realize that there is no Santa except as a playful myth or game for influencing the behavior of naive children, so lets just move on rather than agonize about Santa and how to save the world from Santa or save the world for Santa.” His passionate dismissal of literalism is to contrast an alternative to literalism, not to start a new Holy Roman Imperial military inquisition crusade to politically and economically destroy the literalists. He had compassion for all people -even those that we might call fanatic literalists – while also having a clear appreciation of the risk of the addictive error or sin of literalism as a practice.

Annie Besant arrives in Charing Cross Station,...

Annie Besant arrives in Charing Cross Station, London with Jiddu Krishnamurti, his younger brother Nityananda, and George Arundale, prominent Theosophist and tutor to the boys. (Picture and caption appear on page 84 of Krishanmurti: The Years of Awakening by Mary Lutyens) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

He staunchly rebuked fanaticism and contempt. They go together. Contempt is something of personal fanaticism to vilify some perceived threat. Those who are not in a panic of desperately and hysterically clinging to some idolatrous sacred principle will never manifest a personal contempt. The contempt is like a fruit which shows the type of tree, or a symptom that indicates the spiritual momentum or karma of a desperate, panicked, hysterical clinging to some form of innocent sincere but entirely inaccurate fanatical literalism.

Confusion indicates a false presumption. To confuse one thing for something else, but not yet know the source of the interpretative mistake is confusion.

Frustration indicates the same: a mistaken literalism, a hysterical attachment to a particular interpretation or label. Blame and jealousy and contempt are all totally predictable forms of spiritual distress or hysterical sin that arise from an innocent idolatry of fanatical literalism.

What kind of statement indicates confusion? “I think that something is WRONG here.”

Only when “something is wrong” (the indicator of a confusion- typically a frustrating confusion), is there any relevance to project one’s own frightened guilt on to the villain to blame for “making my totally accurate presumptions suddenly no longer consistent with reality.” Well, maybe those presumptions are not totally accurate after all. Maybe my linguistic labeling should not be given priority over reality. Maybe “what should not be” about reality is not reality ruining reality, but just reality revealing an inaccurate expectation or presumption.

In contrast, those who are clear what god is and how god is related to language and all the other branches of god are free of all false beliefs and free of the psychological fruits of those false beliefs for they have the clarity of direct personal revelation which is faith.

Jesus from the Deesis Mosaic

Jesus from the Deesis Mosaic (Photo credit: jakebouma)

Faith does not need other people’s approval. Faith is not frustrated if other people are not interested or not responsive. Faith is not desperately trying to get in to an eternal heaven that is presumed to be elsewhere.

Faith is the fruit of the kingdom of heaven AKA kingdom of god, which are just English translations of ancient metaphors that precede the written recording of the Talmudand Torah and Gitas. One who is clear about the simplicity of the doctrines cannot be confused by imprecise translations or literalists who resist the idea that word are symbols that can be used quite differently over a few hundred or few thousand years.

Biblical Accuracy

Biblical Accuracy (Photo credit: swanksalot)

I was somewhat shocked when I learned what the Hebrew word Israel originally means. I was not shocked to learn that the Hebrew word for divinity (what we translate in to English as god or lord or savior) is the same as the Sanskrit Brahman, as in the inclusive reality which is beyond time (eternal) and locality (omnipresent) and identity (so it is almighty without any conflicting power to threaten it, as in omnipotent).

That many worship a personal savior like Santa Claus is fine. Many Hindus do not know what Brahman means and so anyone who talks to them might conclude that they are all literalist fanatics who all worship a trinity of three gods: the creator father, the sustainer holy spirit, and the destroyer son, plus they have all these different saints and holidays like worshiping Santa Claus and St Patrick and Saint Valentine and yet they claim to be monotheistic. You ask the average Hindu to explain and clearly they are just following some ancient rituals without comprehending the metaphors.

Corcovado jesus

Corcovado jesus (Photo credit: @Doug88888)

It is like trying to learn Christianity from the average Christian who has never studied the Talmud and has no comprehension of Isaiah or Abraham and thus have ridiculous fanaticism about Jesus instead of demonstrating the faith of Jesus and discipline of Jesus and spirit of Jesus. It is all totally predictable. What else could we reasonably expect?

If we experience it over and over and over, then maybe it is a pattern to learn from, rather than just a threat to the desperation and mental ill will that goes with literal fanaticism. Contempt is ill will. Jiddu Krishnamurti spoke about it passionately, but as a warning against it, just like Isaiah and Moses and so many others warned about it passionately.

Releasing Emotional Tension (Fear, Guilt, & Shame)

October 15, 2012
Santa Claus

Santa Claus (Photo credit: Christopher S. Penn)


Releasing Emotional Tension




We live in the midst of many possible social pressures. We learn that we are rewarded for displaying certain patterns and that we are punished for displaying others.



Religious myths like Santa Claus train us as naive children to conform to certain behavioral expectations and to avoid others. Multitudes of young children take these myths of Santa Claus literally, arguing sincerely that Santa is real and that good behavior is essential to earn’s Santa’s blessings and bribes.



We also may be exposed to ideas like a binary future of either heaven or hell, again encouraging us to behave in certain ways, but to avoid actions which are forbidden by those who threaten us with eternal damnation in hell for disobedience. That teaching is basically the same idea as with Santa, but some myths give more emphasis for adults on the terrifying character called Satan who tortures the disobedient, rather than merely giving them no presents or only filling their stocking with coal. Historical cases similar to Satan include the ritual tortures of the Holy Roman Inquisition and by the most famous champion of the crusades, Vlad the Impaler (AKA Count Dracula).



I recently watched a documentary about some young adults raised in a society which apparently takes teachings about heaven and hell very literally. Suicide rates tend to be rather high. However, conformity is also quite common. So, a culture endures because of the effectiveness of it’s methods of influencing behavior and cultivating loyalty.



English: Santa Claus as illustrated in , v. 52...

English: Santa Claus as illustrated in , v. 52, no. 1344 (December 3 1902), cover. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



We may all be exposed to social pressures to conform to certain standards and avoid (and even ridicule) others. Young children who question the existence of Santa may be condemned by their peers. Those who study the reality of historical methods of religious indoctrination may be very frightening to their peers, and may even be targeted for persecution as “non-believers” or “infidels” or “politically incorrect” or “mentally ill.”



What about questioning the modern translation of a doctrine like “thou shalt not kill?” Orthodox Hebrews may have no issue organizing enormous acts of violence against their selected targets. Why not?



They do not mistranslate from Hebrew in to English. They simply read the Hebrew fluently without needing to translate. “Thou shalt not murder” is not a prohibition against killing birds or killing enemy soldiers or killing Palestinians who are officially trespassing in their own ancient homeland or killing slaves or killing convicted criminals. In fact, along with the prohibition against murder, the Hebrew tradition includes a huge list of crimes to be punished with death, such as adultery.



So, ritual human sacrifice by governing institutions is not murder. Murder means the unauthorized killing of a person whose life is protected within a particular legal system by a warlord who enforces those rules with organized coercion (such as torture and killing).



There is no hypocrisy in banning murder under penalty of death, even while conducting imperialist genocide. They are quite distinct patterns of behavior.



English: Santa Claus as illustrated in , v. 58...

English: Santa Claus as illustrated in , v. 58, no. 1501 (1905 December 6), cover. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


But guilt is typical within certain cultures. Guilt often involves pleasure, such as the fear of pleasure. When guilt (the fear of pleasure) arises, that involves a disappointment with the results of a particular action, such as the result of a fear of punishment. I may find something pleasurable, but if I am punished for it once, then I may not want to be punished for it again, so I refrain from exploring what attracts me (so I can avoid a possible punishment). If that guilt is projected to others, that is called blame, which is inherently hypocritical.




“Oh no, I did not enjoy it at all. It is all their fault that I did the thing that have been planning to do for quite a while, but just waiting impatiently for a justification like this. Frankly, I am appalled and offended that you would suggest that the fact that I repeatedly did it might indicate that I took any pleasure in it whatsoever.”



Blame means when I label a certain past historical sequence as “what should not have happened” and then I project my condemnation of the history (my guilt) on to a target villain. Blame can lead to resentment, jealousy, and a long list of other patterns of frightened animosity.




Shame is also typical within certain cultures. When shames arises, that involves a disappointment about an unfulfilled expectation. What I did not produce, I can never compensate for (like one can in the case of guilt). Thus, shame is rather subtle. As long as I label the past as less important than “what should have happened instead,” that is shaming my own past. If that shame is projected on others (for their failure to fulfill whatever expectations I had), that can be labeled contempt or hatred.



“The Holy Roman Empire should not be an empire! Religions should not indoctrinate! That is the job of the mainstream media and the public school system!”



My own fear about admitting an unfulfilled expectation can result in a dramatic, passionate, aggressive repulsion toward anyone who approaches the subject of my shame. They are perceived as a threat to my emotional stability (to whatever extent there is any stability). If I am not ready to release the tension of the expectation that was not fulfilled, then I repel any attention toward that expectation. I would not want the subject referenced. I would not want the emotional pattern of shame referenced either. All of that would be considered “negativity” and rejected. That is a valid coping mechanism for maintaining distance from emotions that may be too terrifying for the “positive thinker.”





So, belief systems are the source of emotional repression. What is not safe to be revealed (according to a particular socio-cultural system of belief) must be hidden, even at the cost of tremendous muscolo-skeletal tension physically. Those who explore too closely to subjects considered terrifying or shameful may be ferociously attacked for their unwelcome explorations, or at least those people may be systematically avoided.



“What should be” cannot always be directly questioned. “Santa is real. Santa is real because Santa should be real.” There may be no use arguing with a toddler in a tantrum. For them, Santa may be as real as anything else.



“What should not be” cannot always be directly questioned either. “People should not lie. That is why Hell and Satan are real. Hell and Satan are real because otherwise people have been lying to me and indeed I have also been lying to others about how Hell and Satan are not metaphors or myths but absolute literal truths, which is why Hell and Satan must be real, because otherwise I have been lying to others, and people should not lie, so that is unacceptable, as in impossible. In other words, I am not ashamed. If I was ashamed, then that would be shameful, and if there is one thing that I sure do not want to be, it is shameful.”




The releasing of emotional tension naturally follows the recognition of the nature of language. Language is an instrument of social organizing, of influence, of governing, of mind control and behavior control. Language has no other function but such social organizing.



To recognize the function of language may be the most terrifying of all possible subjects. Recognizing the nature of language undermines the entire network of guilt and shame.



A translation of the New Testament says it like this: “To the pure in spirit, everything is pure; but with the divisive spirit of accusation, which is guilty, ashamed, polluted, corrupted, unstedfast, and traumatized, nothing is pure, but on the contrary their very minds and consciences are polluted, defiled, corrupted, confused, panicked.” (adapted from Titus 1:15)



Some see a cause for contempt almost everywhere they look. Others see no cause for contempt except the projecting of an inner shame.



audio: “listen with your mind wide open”

June 27, 2012

hole in a hole.png

shut your mouth            shut your eyes                  and listen with your mind wide
what you see                    and believe                   is only what seems to be

an optical illusion shows me that I’m behind the curtain of the wonderful wizard of Oz
I know it’s false what I see but it’s what I perceive– it humbles me to accept the fact that what I believe could be flawed
Santa Claus was sincere but was what he said true- I’m asking you to reflect on your lack of respect
for your reflex to believe anything you perceive and not just that but then defend it- you’re quickly offended

English: Photo of Jonathan G. Meath portraying...

English: Photo of Jonathan G. Meath portraying Santa Claus. Date approximate. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

shut your mouth            shut your eyes                  and listen with your mind wide
what you see                    and believe                   is only what seems to be

we’ve been played, betrayed, deceived, and misled since before we were bribed by the promises of Santa Claus
fraud is the name of the game of the rulers for they rule your language, perception, and reaction
to the labels that you use loyal to the propaganda that they planted in your naive mind- indoctrinated from our youth
we’ve been trained what to worship, what to hate, and what to do- are you an isolated rebel with a million others just like you?

shut your mouth            shut your eyes                  and listen with your mind wide
what you see                    and believe                   is only what seems to be

So everybody wants what they want, am I right? Yes, and when anyone wants different things, then there’s a fight
or a conflict or argument or some kind of tension- even if it’s suppressed there is still that pressure
Life is struggle… from the wind to the weeds- the cross winds swirl and the weeds all compete for the sun
and the sharks all swarm when they smell fresh blood cause in all of nature be first if you want to eat
the early bird gets the worm
while the late bird goes hungry

shut your mouth            shut your eyes                  and listen with your mind wide
what you see                    and believe                   is only what you’re led to perceive

by the leaders who taught you to never be wrong, to be smart, to be first, to be the leader and do you know who led them?
society misled them and language misled them, biology misled them and all of creation
so who do we blame for training us to blame someone else? Some say they’re the most betrayed, but they speak for themselves
I speak for God– that’s right, you heard what I just said- and God says the arrogant shall be humbled
Now who dares to say that they’ve never been arrogant?
Let the one who has never been naive cast the first shame.

shut your mouth            shut your eyes                  and listen with your mind wide open
to the heart of God        with all your might              for there is only one heart and yet so many cells, but without all the rest, nothing is alive
no cell lives alone          no heart lives alone            no one lives alone
listen with your mind wide open

A comment from DP:
Miroslava once told about you:
” He hides behind the curtain like Oz Wizard…
and he probably knows it.”
It is interesting to me that you and she used the same metaphor.

JR replies:

What the song is saying is that everyone “hides” behind the curtain of subjective perception. What I mean is that everyone naturally presumes that their perceptions are the most valid or even the only valid ones.

We mistake our own personal “dream” (subjective perception) as the ONLY accurate representation or interpretation of reality. In other words, we mistake a representation or interpretation as being something other than just a representation or interpretation.

To be even more concise, perception is only perception. There is no fundamental accuracy to perception itself, like perception during a dream is still perception, even if all of the perception while dreaming is entirely delusional. <continued below>

The reference to an optical illusion (in the song lyrics) is about recognizing, even while awake, that perception is merely perception. A similar idea would be to put a straw in to a glass of water and notice that the straw “is bent” by the water- in terms of the subjective appearance. The straw does not really bend, but really appears to be bent.

If a small child approaches you to show you a “magic trick” of bending a straw by putting it in water, would you criticize their foolishness? You might “correct’ their language though, right? You might say that the straw only appears to bend, which might be unfamiliar vocabulary to a small child.

However, to hysterically condemn “magic” and mystery may require a misunderstanding of both the nature of perception and the nature of language. The ancient teaching is not so much to condemn “magic,” but to promote humility rather than a naive optimism in “positive thinking” and other forms of magic, such as “prayer requests.” It is fine to pray to have personal wishes fulfilled magically, but even better is to pray to recognize the “will of God” and “become filled” with it.

So, it is hysterical (delusional) to condemn a small child for “practicing magic” in regard to “lying about pretending to bend a straw” when they simply do not know the word “refraction.”  What many people do not admit is that the entire realm of language is “magic.” It is not considered magic to say that a glass with some water in it is half full and then miraculously change the glass with some water in it in to a glass that is half empty, simply by describing it differently. However, the nature of all “magic” is to redirect attention and perception. Language is the most popular form of magic. Just as in the time of Jesus, many well-respected people (including religious leaders) are hysterically deluded.

Anyway, the sincere perception of a bending of the straw (if it is slowly put in to a glass of water) is not from a change in the straw (even if someone says so), but is just an interpretative process of “the perceiver.” However, the “perceiver” is actually just another perceiving or subjective experience. I’ll come back to that in a moment.

The interpretative process of perceiving (the neurological organizing of pattern recognition) is “the curtain” referenced in the song. Mystics have talked about the “veil of perception” for thousands of years before Frank Baum wrote the Wizard of Oz (in the year 1900) and borrowed the metaphor.

So, the personal identity in language is actually part of the veil. There is “no one” beyond the veil. When there is no dreaming, there is no perceiving of a dreamer. The dreamer is an aspect of the dreaming, not the source of the dreaming, but an effect or another subjective perception.

That is the teaching labeled as Anatma (or Anatta or no-self or selflessness) by Hindus and Buddhists and Mooji and Zenjis. The twisting of the teaching of selflessness (which is the absence of persona and presence of only God) in to the moral repression of “unselfishness” is a common delusion, popular within the system of delusion known as mainstream Christianity, which is the proper function of that branch of religion (culture), as an expression of the Will of God, which is the only Will.

Note that the two “greatest” commandments are that “There is only one God and no other” (not just no other God, but no other reality at all) and “if there is a recognizing of God within all of creation (not just humans, by the way), then the natural fruit of that direct recognition (or “faith”) is to interact with all of life as one’s own life, not because a certain person should do that, but because all of life is one’s own life. There is no other life but the life of God, which I can call mine.” 28-33:

One teacher of religious law was listening to some people debate. He realized that Jesus had answered well, so he asked Jesus, “Of all religious instructions, which is the most important?”

Jesus replied, “The most important instruction is this, ‘Listen, Children of Divine Authority: Divine Authority is One [Complete, Inclusive, Whole, Holy, Perfect, Pure, Limitless]. Worship Divine Authority alone with your whole heart and with your entire soul and with your entire mind and with all your power.’”

 31The second is equally important: ‘Cherish any (perceived) other as yourself.’h No other commandment is greater than these.”

32The teacher of religious law replied, “Well said, Rabbi. You have spoken the truth by saying that Divine Authority is Complete, and there is not another outside of the source.”33

(Note that any interpreter who is unfamiliar with the experience referenced by Jesus might distort the clarity of the above dialogue when translating from one language to another- especially if they are not especially fluent in the ancient language. They might be deceived by their own perceptions and believe that “the water has really bent the straw.” However, God is simply one. Labeling the various parts of God or forms of God does not constitute “polytheism” any more than saying that God is both omnipresent and omnipotent. Those are not distinct gods, but two qualities of God, and indeed every quality is a quality of God. God is the source of all qualities! So, those who presume to “defend God” from the “threat” of multiple names and adjectives and labels are hysterically deluded. Allah, Brahman, and Jehovah all forgive each other for speaking in different languages!)

refraction by liquids: two glasses with straws

The refraction of the two images above is slightly different. One glass has water with sugar dissolved in the water, which changes the refraction. Notice that the glass on the right “spreads” the squares of the tablecloth much further than the one on the left.

frustrated with government bureaucracy?

June 1, 2012
A lot of the frustration and delays that we experience are related to fear (as in panic) and how we relate to other people, like as if they should not be reactive when they are reactive (and often covertly terrified). In that regard, consider briefly that we have a limited amount of time that we could invest in generating overwhelming public support and then, with a wave of conspicuous public support, directing our servants or agents in government bureaucracy to provide labels that distinguish inferior and superior products- not with a hysterical insistence, but to present a calm, authoritative spin as our consistent emphasis.
I have repeatedly emphasized my concern that time and money has been invested in reactive, adversarial criticisms of lobbying interests and government interventions, rather than investing those resources toward cultivating a swelling wave of public sentiment in favor of specific government protections and, when appropriate, regulatory standards, such as to call for labeling standards that specify the categorically lower nutritional quality of pasteurized products. Such a campaign might have it’s primary value not in altering bureaucratic policy, but in redefining the conversation people have about the issues.
As an analogy, I do not argue with an upset (confused) 4 year-old that there is no such thing as Santa Claus. I re-frame the entire conversation. Consider that the FDA, USDA, and many lawyers are similar to 6 year-olds… and that we have been as well.
It’s like we have been trying to explain calculus to a hysterical 4 year-old and then getting frustrated that they keep asking about when Santa will be arriving instead of even using our technical jargon. One of the biggest pitfalls of intelligent people is the lack of the capacity to empathize emotionally with people of lower intelligence. Arrogant naivete does not always work well, if ever. It does not help to raise your voice when speaking to a deaf person. It does not help to talk to a cop like they are a lawyer. It does not help to talk to a lawyer like they are a scientist. It does not help to appeal to common sense in a conversation in which there is no one listening. We may need to listen more and talk less, but much more precisely.
So, if our public servants act in ways we could interpret as them sincerely wanting to promote labeling guidelines and commercial restrictions that distinguish high-risk substances from safe substances, we can honor them for their intentions as distinct from their policies and then ask them leading questions AS RESPECTFUL REPRESENTATIVES OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY (not as protesters or arguing respondents, but, in legal terms, as counter-claimant or cross-plaintiff- I figure that some of you folks might recognize those terms from conversations with people like Joel Salatin): “on what basis do you assess risk and safety? When did you last update your guidelines as to what is categorized as risky? Why did you update it then? When will you update those guidelines again? What guidelines do you use to update your guidelines?”
Joel Salatin holds a hen during a tour of Poly...

Joel Salatin holds a hen during a tour of Polyface Farm. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

That last one is the really important question. We can interact with public bureaucrats as if they are sincere, good-intentioned, misinformed people who may recognize that they have a growing public credibility problem and we can help them resolve it.
We would not condescendingly argue that the earth revolves around the sun to a 4 year-old who insists that the sun is rising and setting while the earth is still. They simply do not know the word “revolve.” It is useless to try to simply inform them that the earth, which appears still (and flat) to them, is in fact speeding through space.
Basically, we have failed to produce the results we value and then, in some cases, have blamed others for our own failing to produce the results we value. Have mercy on them.
We are blaming people that we know are confused and reactive. That is our ignorance and naivete if we continue to use the same methods and expect different results. We can develop our leadership skills and lead well rather than complain about the crappy leadership of others.
The bureaucratic officers may never be leaders and may always be followers. Why criticize followers for not leading? If they are following the instructions of people who are better at PR and lobbying then we are, then we could focus on getting better at PR and lobbying.

new myth, old god (and the origin of heaven and hell on earth)

April 14, 2012


Superman (comic book)

Superman (comic book) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Easter Bunny

The Easter Bunny (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Satan as Antichrist

Satan as Antichrist (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



1830, from Gk. mythos “speech, thought, story, myth,”
[C19: via Late Latin from Greek muthos:  fable, word]
Santa Claus with a little girl Esperanto: Patr...

Santa Claus with a little girl Esperanto: Patro Kristnasko kaj malgranda knabino Suomi: Joulupukki ja pieni tyttö (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Myth means a story. Specifically, a myth is a story told for the purpose of influencing an audience (whether or not that purpose is recognized or admitted).
Even more specifically, myth could mean almost any sequence of words. We can contrast myths with other sequences of words, like a simple list of different colors- such as red, white, and blue- which does not qualify as a story, right?
As an example of a myth, I could tell a story about a character named Santa Claus (or “Father Christmas“), who once upon a time met some children and bribed them by promising them a pleasant surprise in the near future. So, the story I could tell about Santa Claus might be influential whether or not any particular element of the story is already popular or famous or familiar.
I could call the story a metaphor or a parable or a joke or a legend or an anecdote or just a story. Even if a story is labeled entirely true, the telling of the story could still be for producing some result by influencing an audience. Since there may be no other reason for speaking except to promote certain results through influence, any story could be a myth.

If some people doubt or even reject the literal references of a story, that story can still be a myth, right? If some people believe the literal references of some story, the story can still be a myth. If some people even argue over a story, the story can still be a myth.

Raffaello Sanzio - The Creation of Eve from Ad...

Raffaello Sanzio – The Creation of Eve from Adam – WGA18600 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Hundreds or even millions of people could go to war with each other after hearing stories and then practicing, refining, and rehearsing those stories. The stories may or may not be completely true, but that may not really even be especially to the people. Some people may be more eager to argue or launch an attack than to research the details of a particular story. Some people may be more eager to make a certain purchase or cast a certain vote than to question the stories that are motivating, organizing, and producing those actions.

Mythology (Photo credit: KairosOfTyre)

People organize their time and their behavior and their finances based on stories. However, perhaps only a few people may be curious to explore the stories that inform or form their patterns of behavior (and the results produced by those patterns of behavior).
Mythology is the study of stories told for the purpose of influencing an audience, such as the curriculum of a class or a commercial advertisement. Studying the art of story-telling and the art of influence or communication is one possible meaning of the word mythology.

1375–1425; late Middle English mythologie  < Late Latin mȳthologia
< Greek mȳthología. See mytho--logy

study of – Gk. mythos “speech, thought, story, myth,”

Masaccio, Brancacci Chapel, Adam and Eve, detail.

Masaccio, Brancacci Chapel, Adam and Eve, detail. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In summary, a myth is an influential story. So, a “new myth” would be any influential story that is unfamiliar (“new”). The following is a new myth about an old god.
Once upon a time, there was an old god. The god had been around for a very long time, even longer than any of the stories about the old god. The god was so old that the god was called eternal, since the god was older than any stories about the god, all of which were actually invented by the god, who also invented language.
One old story about the god called the god by the name Indra. This story was one of the oldest stories about god. Indra was also called “huta,” which meant the invocation. By the way, invocation basically means an influential sequence of words, such as a myth.
So, that old word from the Sanskrit language was eventually written in some recent alphabet as “huta” which was later modified in to other words like ghuta and ghut and guth and goth and gott and god. So, the word “god” was first formed a little over a thousand years ago, but, even before that word was formed, other similar words were formed like Indra and Allah and Jehovah and YHWH and Buddha and Tao and Saturn and Set and Loki and El.
Indra is the god-king of heaven and god of thu...

Indra is the god-king of heaven and god of thunder, lightning and rain. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


O.E. god “supreme being, deity,” from P.Gmc. *guthan
 (cf. Du.god, Ger. Gott, O.N. guð, Goth. guþ), from PIE *ghut-
 “that which is invoked” (cf. Skt. huta- “invoked,” an epithet of Indra),
from root *gheu(e)- “to call, invoke.”
before 900; Middle English, Old English;  cognate with Dutch god,
German Gott, Old Norse goth, Gothic guth
[Old English god;  related to Old Norse goth,  Old High Germangot,  Old Irish guth  voice]
So, god is a relatively new word- just over a thousand years old- representing a very old idea. “God” has to do with invocation and voice and authority and authoring as in the creating of distinct experiences through variations in speaking.
For instance, in one influential story, God declares a distinction between heaven and earth. Earth is the realm of external experience as in subjective perception. Heaven is the realm of internal experience as in conception or concepts or conceiving or creating or identifying or labeling.
So, it is said that “as above, so below.” This means that the realm of earthly experience is a product of or partner of a heavenly conceiving, as in the “immaculate” conceiving.
God speaks things in to existence as the reality or realm or kingdom of experience. The realm of heaven or kingdom of God is the authority of language or the reality of myth.
The 1st English edition of The Kingdom of God ...

The 1st English edition of The Kingdom of God Is Within You. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


After all, myths are a distinct part of reality, right? Myths are real stories that can be really influential. 
Myths are the origins of identity and experience. Myths are tools for training audiences in a particular way to relate to life. 
For instance, one way to relate to life is to identify particular elements of life to repress as shameful or evil or sinful or even incurable problems (since if I personally do not recognize any possible solution already, then obviously it is not possible that anyone would ever recognize a possible solution, so the problem is labeled incurable, which could just be a reflection of my ignorance of physiology or psychiatry etc). Anyway, once we have declared some sacred taboos as “the negative,” then there could be particular patterns of behavior identified that one can take to compensate for those shameful realities, as in earning one’s way in to heaven from out of hell. That is the myth of living in hell because of some “original sin.”
That is a perfectly valid story to tell, right? There are other stories that one could tell, but that is a very popular one.
Santa Claus

Santa Claus (Photo credit: Natashenka)

Another related story is that there is a god who does not condemn any perception or pattern, but recognizes the reality of something called innocence, like an innocent mistake. God forgives. God says things like “if there seems to be a problem with someone else’s perception, remove the identifying of that problem from your own perception. Stop relating to the rest of reality as a set of problems. Start some introspection. Remove the blindness and filters from your own perception first, then perhaps you can assist others in removing any perception of problems from their perspective. Remember, the perspective is the source of the perception- including a perception of a problem, which is a way of relating to something as in identifying yourself in relation to it.”
Santa Claus

Santa Claus (Photo credit: Christopher S. Penn)

So, are myths problems? In other words, are influential stories problems? Or, are influential stories just real influential stories?
Which is more important: to save the world from the problem of influential stories or to study the reality of influential stories so that one is clear that relating to influential stories as a problem is just one of many valid ways to identify or labels myths? Whichever story you tell, that is the story you will experience.
Papyrus 111 Nederlands: Papyrus 111

Papyrus 111 Nederlands: Papyrus 111 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

20The Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God would come. He answered them, “People can’t observe the coming of the kingdom of God. 21They can’t say, ‘Here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ You see, the kingdom of God is within you.”
20Being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The Kingdom of God doesn’t come with observation; 21neither will they say, ‘Look, here!’ or, ‘Look, there!’ for behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.”20
And having been questioned by the Pharisees, when the reign of God doth come, he answered them, and said, ‘The reign of God doth not come with observation; 21 nor shall they say, Lo, here; or lo, there; for lo, the reign of God is within you.’
20Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is withinb you.”

20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you


Halloween (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God comes not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, See here! or, see there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God cometh, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you.

 And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come? he answered them, and said: The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you

20 And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God cometh, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you.

Star Wars - Darth Vader

Star Wars – Darth Vader (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 And when he was asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation. 21 Neither will they say, Lo here! or lo there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

 Being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God was coming, He answered, “The Kingdom of God does not so come that you can stealthily watch for it. 21 Nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ –for the Kingdom of God is within you.”

The Kingdom of God Is Within You (Russian: Цар...

The Kingdom of God Is Within You (Russian: Царство Божие внутри вас) is the non-fiction magnum opus of Leo Tolstoy first published in Germany in 1894, after being banned in his home country of Russia. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world….”
New Living Translation (©2007)
Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom….”
Santaclaus at Helsinki Cathedral Suomi: Joulup...

Santa Claus at Helsinki Cathedral Suomi: Joulupukki Helsingin tuomiokirkon edustalla (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Cover art by Mike Grell.

Cover art by Mike Grell. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Batman #1 (Spring 1940). Art by Bob Kane and J...

Batman #1 (Spring 1940). Art by Bob Kane and Jerry Robinson. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

myth is a modern word (from the Greek) for an older Sanskrit word:


maya  (ˈmaɪə, ˈmɑːjə, ˈmɑːjɑː)
— n
Hinduism  illusion, esp the material world of the senses regardedas illusory
[C19: from Sanskrit]


[mah-yah, -yuh]  Show IPA

noun Hinduism .


the power, as of a god, to produce illusions.


the production of an illusion.


(in Vedantic philosophy) the illusion of the reality of sensoryexperience and of the experienced qualities and attributes ofoneself.


( initial capital letter ) Also called Mahamaya. a goddesspersonifying the power that creates phenomena.

Mythology - Hypnos

Mythology – Hypnos (Photo credit: Jess*Lo)


For those who argue over the existence of language, God, or atheism

April 5, 2012
Photo of Jonathan G. Meath portraying Santa Cl...

Photo of Jonathan G. Meath portraying Santa Claus. Date approximate. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For those who argue over the existence of language
Does language exist? Sure, we can perceive patterns, so we know that perceiving exists and we also know patterns of perceiving exist, but what about language? Does it exist or not?
For those of us who can not only hear but also are fluent in a particular language being spoken, we can perceive patterns of sounds and interpret them in to words and then in to sequence of words that produce stimulation of things like neurons that trigger memories. We can label all of that process as language.
For those of us who can not only see but also can read, we can perceive patterns of shapes and interpret them in to letters and make words out of them and then we can label that literacy, which is also language. However, literacy is a huge technological advance over spoken language.
We can count all numeric symbols as literacy and we can name all written symbols to also be part of literacy. We can even include in our definition of language things like physical gestures, such as waving or nodding or even complex things like the signals that officials in sporting events use.

So, for sake of argument, let’s presume for at least a moment that there is such a thing as language or at least there could be. Now, what would be some of it’s attributes?
Is language an individuality as in a person or isolated organism? Language clearly is not exclusive to any specific individual or organism. We can call language transpersonal (or just non-personal or impersonal).
Is language temporary? Language is the source of all units of time, so we could even say that language is beyond time, is the source of time, and was prior to time. We could say that language is eternal, that language is both the beginning and the end, that before any particular identifying in language existed, such as “Abraham,” language is already present.
We could say that language is the root of all identifying and of all identities. We could say that language is the source of all linguistic events or processes, such as communication or interpretation or translation.
We could make lots of comments about language. All of the comments would be instances of language already. We might even say that “if you are clear about the foundation of what language is, then all of the rest is mere commentary.”

Bible (Photo credit: Sean MacEntee)

Now, if you happen to be familiar with certain linguistic constructions that are popular within a branch of language called Christianity, then you may recognize many of the above references to the ancient spiritual texts of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and so on. So, with that in mind, consider the following scenario.
Along time ago, there once lived a man named Santa Claus who talked a lot about a great secret. Certain people understood some of what he said and a few people understood a lot of what he said, but he was basically considered to be very weird and unusual and odd and abnormal. He occasionally said really bizarre things like “Knowing the great secret is the most important thing that you can do. Here are some of the infinite qualities of the great secret, but these are only a few of them. First, the great secret is eternal. When the first distinctions were made between heaven and earth, the great secret was already there and the great secret was the process by which the first distinctions in language were made, for the distinctions of language are language and of course language is in them and those distinctions are in language. By the way, language is the great secret and it is not really all that secret and possibly not all that great, but I had to say something to get your attention and if I have your attention now, then whatever I said worked to get you here, right? Anyway, the great secret is not just an individual, but it is within every individual just as within every branch is the life of the tree which gives life to the branches. Further, when you recognize the fundamental authority of the great secret of language, then any secondary authorities or instructions will instantly be recognized as merely formations of language, which is the great secret. Any formations in language are not themselves the great secret. Anything that can be spoken is not the great secret, which I like to call Tao.”
Now, all of that was very strange and intriguing to some folks. So, they talked about what Santa Claus had said and then, perhaps only a few decades later, they wrote down their best recollections of what he had said, plus some of their own commentaries and their letters to each other. They called themselves titles like Apostles and Prophets and Christians and they collected their various written records in to scrolls and books and called them things like the Bible and Torah and Talmud and Gitas and Sutras and Taoist Classics.
Then, along came a four year-old who was assigned by some king the task of making a single authorized translation of those ancient writings in to the English language from Greek. The four year-old was not Greek, by the way, but she insisted that she was a very big girl now that she was “this many” years old and she asserted that she was very smart and of course she could make an excellent and complete translation of these books. It is not like they were about something obscure and subtle like algebra or biochemistry or mythical archetypes of psychological astro-theology, right?
So, anyway, she wrote about a category in language called Logos and she translated that word as “Word” instead of as language or linguistics or “the great secret.” Then for hundreds or even thousands of years, lots of people worshiped the words that she wrote and completely missed the “spirit” of the original revelations. Ironically, a lot of what she wrote about was warnings about people worshiping specific words and neglecting the spirit or value of the communication carried through the words.
Logo of the Aston Language Centre

One of the least famous "Logos" in the world, the logo of the Aston Language Centre (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Isaiah 29:13 The Lord says: “These people come near to me with 

 The Lord says, “These people worship me with their mouths and honor me with
their lips. But their hearts are far from me, and their  
// – 17k

Matthew 15:8 “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their 

“‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me These
people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me
// – 16k

Mark 7:6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about 

He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is
written: “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from 
// – 17k

Matthew 15:9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but 

 but it is in vain they worship Me, while they lay down
precepts which are mere human rules.'” 
// – 16k

Mark 7:7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules 

 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ … 
// – 15k

Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him 

 they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as  Because that, when they knew God,
they glorified him not  God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their 
// – 17k

Psalm 127:1 A song of ascents. Of Solomon. Unless the LORD builds 

 [A song by Solomon for going up to worship.] If the LORD does not build  Except the
LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the 
// – 16k

Hosea 12:11 Is Gilead wicked? Its people are worthless! Do they 

 But the people of Gilead are worthless because of their idol worship If Galaad be
an idol, then in vain were they in Galgal offering sacrifices with 
// – 16k

Isaiah 44:9 All who make idols are nothing, and the things they 

 The people who worship idols don’t know this, so they are all put  Everyone who makes
an engraved image is vain. The things that they delight in will not profit 
// – 16k

Jonah 2:8 “Those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace 

 Those who worship false gods turn their backs on all God’s mercies.  They
that are vain observe vanities, forsake their own mercy. 
// – 14k

Colossians 2:18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility 

 denial or the worship of angels, saying they have had  making little of himself and
giving worship to angels  the things which he hath not seen, in vain puffed up 
// – 18k

Isaiah 1:13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is 

 and your special days for fasting–they are all  Bring no more vain offerings; incense
is an abomination to me  New Moon Festivals, your days of worship, and the 
// – 16k

Isaiah 29:13 The Lord says: “These people come near to me with 

The Lord says: “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor
me with their lips, but their hearts are far from meTheir 
// – 17k

Matthew 15:8 “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.

Matthew 15:9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'”

Mark 7:6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.

Mark 7:7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’

Colossians 2:22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings.

Ezekiel 33:31 My people come to you, as they usually do, and sit before you to listen to your words, but they do not put them into practice. With their mouths they express devotion, but their hearts are greedy for unjust gain.

Jeremiah 12:2 You have planted them, and they have taken root; they grow and bear fruit. You are always on their lips but far from their hearts.

Psalm 50:16
But to the wicked, God says: “What right have you to recite my laws or take my covenant on your lips.

Secret Santa (The Office)

Secret Santa (The Office) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Gospel of Santa Claus

March 20, 2012

That crazy lady said “hey, don’t you want to be happy?”

all I could think of was “well, how about settling for perfect?”

then she shook her head, twisted her face like a lemon
rolled her eyes at me and said “you’re just too realistic.”

“first, you’ve got to fix what’s wrong  so you can get to heaven
only then can you be happy            but surely not till then”
she said “I know this is true,           because Santa Claus said so
and then God wrote it down             so there now you know… this is true.”
I’m a perfectionist                   the very best in the world
at being almost anxious         whenever things might go wrong
but I don’t show it cause   the only thing that we have to fear
is fear itself                           so I must pretend that I’m strong
I’m agonizing about how          to get out of agony
maybe I should get degrees    in reverse psychology
then I would become the way   that I should already be
according to someone else      who seems to be afraid of me

Santa Claus as illustrated in , v. 52, no. 134...

Santa Claus as illustrated in , v. 52, no. 1344 (December 3 1902), cover. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“first, you’ve got to fix what’s wrong  so you can get to heaven

only then can you be happy            but surely not till then”
she said “I know this is true,           because Santa Claus said so
and then God wrote it down             so there now you know… this is true.”

wait how do we know what’s wrong, so that we can try to fix it?
Did Santa Claus spell it out           so we can pass his test?
your sister had his class last year  can she sell us the answers?
my gramma said it’s a scam          but why not play along? 

That crazy lady said “hey, don’t you want to be happy?”

all I could think of was “well, how about settling for perfect?”
then she shook her head, twisted her face like a lemon
rolled her eyes at me and said “you’re just too realistic.”
Nederlands: Sinterklaas tijdens het Het Feest ...

Nederlands: Sinterklaas tijdens het Het Feest van Sinterklaas (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

%d bloggers like this: