POSTED ON DECEMBER 1, 2010:
Love Letters/Hate Mail
(In response to "What Do My Kids Really Need?" in the Nov. 18-24 issue of Urban Tulsa Weekly.)
I strongly agree with the main thrust of this article: We should not cater to our children at the expense of our marriage--that's not good for anyone, not even the children. (And, for what it's worth, I'm in the mental health field and see what such behavior does to families.)
I would add that although the article makes several references to God or religion, the overall wisdom of prioritizing one's marriage is not dependent on any theological point of view. It's sound psychology, and consistent with human nature.
Hope We Get Our Money's Worth
Tulsa has the million dollar mayor -- Dewey Bartlett -- when adding up his salary and the salaries of the entourage of assistants and their staffs. Republicans love to outsource and bring expert advisors from their national network of cohort contributors that feed off the big government they campaign against, and now want to bring in advisors to analyze the advice of the advisors.
When the Republicans say reform, they mean destroy services, and privatize always means raise the costs and lower the services to citizens. For those that follow politics, we knew if Bartlett was elected, his hidden agenda was to destroy the Council and the FOP, and all other unions and departmental heads that would stand up against his take-over. His selection for Chief of Police was another fake process that fooled no one.
Day after day, on the news and newspapers, we are forced to see this mayor parading and pronouncing these foolish schemes of destroying the Tulsa citizens' right to representative government and the protection of citizens -- to not buy sand and salt before needed -- was pure craziness. If Mayor Bartlett really cares about Tulsa, he should resign -- he is a cruel joke against Tulsa. But, some voters here still do not get it. After all, this is Sarah Palin's favorite place to come get money from redundant suckers (three trips so far -- she'll be back where the money is easy).
When the old time bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he said, "That's where the money is" -- drum roll, please. How about this: Why don't the people of Tulsa outsource this Mayor -- with a City Manager. One can be hired for one-tenth of the cost and none of the daily silliness and humiliation on the citizens.
(I was) born in Tulsa, (and) never had a bad mayor until now -- pity!
-J. Ray Hunt
Depends On Your Definition of "Good"
(In response to "A Perfect God and Imperfect People" in the Nov. 11-17 issue of Urban Tulsa Weekly)
From the special philosophical framework I was taught as a child and a young adult, the comments by the writer so far are cohesive and clearly conform with that religious philosophy. In other words, they are comprehensible and reasonable within that context.
I have a different view of the matters in hand. May I present these to you?
There is no record of the person the Christians call "Jesus" ever having told people to be good. His recorded sayings I have been able to find say that being good is impossible for humans. He explained that it wasn't enough to do something wrong, that even considering the possibility of doing wrong was a sin and just proves that we are without hope or redemption. I can't find even a hint of Him ever suggesting that we are supposed to try to be good. He was pretty clear that any attempt to be good was a far worse sin than just doing wrong, because it partook of self-delusion, self-deception and betrayal of ones own soul.
He made it clearly plain that we shouldn't try to be "good." He then offered a shot at being re-booted, reborn, healed, fixed and corrected. He is said to have described this experience as being "Born Again," in whatever language that has been translated from. From a careful investigation of the subject, it would seem that being "Born Again" must be preceded by an experience called "Dying to your self." I find it interesting that Buddhism teaches that the self is a false mental construct. So, my take on this is that being "Born Again" is a kind of death, followed by a re-birth. To change the basic operating system, it's not enough to add or change information; it's also necessary to reboot the system. This requires the faith to allow God to recreate who you are. Historically, the groups who call themselves "The Christian Church" have recommended that their followers try to be good. This seems to me to be in complete disagreement with the sayings of Christ. It's useless for your false self to try to be good. The only good thing you can do as your false self is to let go and let God reboot you, thus saving who you really are. There is no advantage in saving your false self. The salvation the churches recommend would seem to be a method of continuing to be a lie for eternity. I think the soul the Christians want God to save is actually the self that must be abandoned to reach salvation.
The history of Christians and their churches, the genocides, evil and corruption, make a lot more sense when it's understood that this is the history of those who equate being "Born Again" with belief in a religious philosophy or membership in a group, rather then the total transformation of consciousness Christ taught.
Personally, I really don't care if the Christ lived as a man on Earth two thousand years ago, or not. The real Christ lives in every one of us, crucified on our cross-purposes, and He can save us, if we let Him.
URL for this story: http://www.urbantulsa.comhttp://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A33989