Davidsun

One can only know for sure what one thinks (about anything) oneself. I note that you didn't say (in your reply) what you thought about what I thought (and so specifically shared) about what Jesus's words actually meant. Hence I cannot engage in further con-verse-ation with you about that. The points you expressed are reasonable but completely peripheral to my interest (as reflected in what I specifically posted about what I thought (and so specifically shared) about what Jesus's words actually meant. Until or unless someone relates to what I said, I have no further comments

Maybe you don't remember but it was you who (for your own reasons) introduced the give to 'beggars' theme into the 'turn the other cheek' conversation, Paul,. when you said: " By turning the other cheek to the evildoer (or giving even more to the plaintiff than sought in court, or walking an extra mile if forced to walk one, or giving to beggars and also not refusing anyone who wants to borrow from you) I think Jesus is saying show your preparedness not to perpetuate acts of aggression and retribution, not to harbour unhelpful baggage in life (i.e. wishing for revenge) and maybe help others not carry such baggage also - the aggrieved beggar who doesn't get help, or the destitute friend who desperately needs a loan to carry him through - both whom may be left feeling scorned if we don't help them when we could." I was just commenting that I thought that 'good will' notions (yours in this case) and consequently people's 'projections' as to what (some of) Jesus preachment actually meant were a tad nice-nice simplistic. Thank you for considering my (above) proposition(s) in this regard.

From the article you mentioned and provided a link to in your OP, Paul: "Did Jesus have a “theological premise” different from me, at this point; especially with regard to the use of the word “god?” Probably. If Jesus were alive today, would he view things differently, and express himself differently as a result? Maybe. But it’s probably the only reason it makes me wish I believed in something as fanciful as a Second Coming!" In response to that, quoting from the recently completed first chapter of my treatise title "What Jesus REALLY Meant": What anyone thinks Jesus really meant when he used such and related phrases and why he or she imagines he chose to speak of God as ‘the Father’ and himself as ‘the Son’ (of said Father) will, of course, depend on his or her personal apprehension and understanding of metaphysical realities and ‘sense’ of what the mind-and-heart sets of the people around Jesus were like at the time. My own conclusions in this regard, which I proffer for consideration and contemplation, are that he used ‘the Father’ to reference the progenitive Source (hence, ‘the Creator’) of all existential being, and ‘the Son’ to reference the totality of said Creator’s Creation (d/b/a Creativity), in other words The Entity of Life as It exists and continues to express Itself in Being. Besides elaborating the thinking (about what he is quoted as having said) which led me to the above conclusion, based on my (non--literal) interpretation of quotes of various of his others words I also explain, in non-allegorical terms, what I have concluded about the idea of 'his' "Second Coming" actually means in said 23 page chapter. Here is an excerpt of the relevant portion of that which I present to (hopefully) entice you and/other others into reading the whole article and considering 'the view' presented therein (click here for a free pdf download if your interest gets piqued): Jesus’ prescient depiction of the next such ‘coming’ event, wherein those who are prepared to do so soulfully ‘wake up’ to the Whole Truth and therefore enter into and thereafter continue to consciously live in communion with the Totality of Life while others ‘fall’ by the wayside and get recyled (so to speak), to wit: “As the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. … they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:27 30) does not mean that he will then literally flash across the sky and be seen everywhere as he ‘gloriously’ orbits the planet in person. People who are emotionally invested in worshiping Jesus himself as a super-magical genie kind of God will undoubtedly regard the explanation that follows as being unacceptably heretical, but assuming you are not one such – why would you still be engaged in exploring this thesis otherwise? – let me submit that the above-quoted statement only makes real sense if one interprets it metaphorically, with “heaven” being understood as referencing the realm of consciousness and (so) “the clouds” as referencing the particularities of ideological constellations, or philosophies, within it. “The Son of man” alludes to the corpus of human apprehension, or ‘knowing’ – often spoken of as Cosmic Consciousness – pertaining to the Life as a Whole; that is, the entirety of the living system composed by and of our creative Source (i.e. God, ‘the Father’), All That Is (i.e. The Entity of Creation, ‘the Son’, a/k/a Christ), and everyone’s relationally interfused interaction(s) therewith and therein, as postulated and discussed herein hitherto. The “lightning” that shines “out of the east … even unto the west” analogically dramatizes the way in which powerfully functional thoughts, i.e. ‘knowings’, are psychically transmitted and received and (so) spread throughout our noosphere.* The overall implication, of course, being that consciousness of what the words "“I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you” (John 14:20) super-succinctly signify will illuminatingly permeate the thinking of holistically inclined people wherever they may be located all over the world. * A noteworthy example of noospheric knowledge-gestalt transmission-and-reception phenomenon, well documented by clearly consequent changes in course of human history, is how Martin Luther’s knowing that the Pope wasn’t the sole, or ‘central’, interpreter and transmitter of godly truth showed up in Copernicus’ knowing that the earth wasn’t the ‘center’ of the universe and that it and the other planets in our solar system all similarly revolved around our sun, which knowings eventually ‘blossomed’ in the enterprise now labeled Modern Science, the entirety of which grew out of the knowing that the ‘laws’ or ‘principles’ of Creation were not ‘centrally’ dictated but universally pervasive, i.e. the knowing that Nature operates the same way in relation to any and all ‘participant-observers’ regardless of their relative space-time location or energy condition. Many speak of such prophesied ‘happening’, wherein those who have developed to the point where they are ripe (so to speak) for it psychically become aware of and consequently choose to participate in The Flow of Life by wholeheartedly enjoying and lovingly giving their all to augment and enrich Its magnificent process, as the Second ‘Coming’ (of Christ, i.e. Cosmic Identity, Consciousness), which they project as being yet to happen. Connoisseurs of history of ideas and cultural evolution, however, will recognize that this, slowly evolving at first but now exponentially rapidly accelerating, phenomenon has been underway for quite a while now, though the visibility of such trend is often clouded by the fact that the greater part of of our population, even of those who proclaim themselves to be 'Christians', has not been and still isn’t spiritually in synch with it. I suggest keeping “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few [relatively speaking] there be that find it.” (Matthew 7:13) in mind when viewing and contemplating the lay of the land in this regard.

I do believe that peeps with an 'unclean conscience' are more prone to tripping themselves up - such are the 'unseen' ways of spirit! Who knows if I such belief is 'correct' or not? Speaking of giving away one's coat, what I once heard in this regard, which made and still makes great 'sense' to me, was/is that Jesus advised the (male) folks of his (Jewish) culture who were being sued (in a court of law) for their coats they wore for unpaid) 'debts', probably relating to their not being able to pay their 'rent', to give them their 'shirts' also as a way of shaming them for being excessively greedy, unduly callous etc. How so? Because in that culture, peeps did not wear any 'undergarments' (under said long-tailed shirts) and it was generally thought shameful to see another man's doohicky's, i.e. to 'see' another man 'naked'! He was actually advocating that people 'flash' such landlords and shame them as a demonstration of protest, methinks.

It's that "Shades of Grey" thing again, aye what Paul? When I lived in in NYC, I 'learned' that there were professional 'beggars' ('pan handlers', etc) who were so adept, they amassed so much money (over the warmer months) that they then 'vacation' in Florida over the winter. One I met as he 'worked' the subway crowd could drag one of his feet on its edge, mimicking a 'cripled' leg, so well you couldn't tell he was faking unless you took a good look at the sole of the shoe on that foot and then saw it had a 'normal' wear pattern. I 'chewed him out' for his fakery, out loud so everyone around could hear me! I have also had several destitute 'friends' who I loaned money to 'in good faith' (as the saying goes) only to have to hound them in order to get them to pay me pack when they clearly had enough money to. One thing I've noticed about about teachings/teachers which/who promote 'charitability' and 'charity' is that they are more usually just focused on getting people to be unselfishly generous to the point where they totally neglect 'educating' people so as to be able to identify and appropriately deal with scams and scammers, 'holy'-seeming people and causes included! (Not that there aren't many really deserving (of generosity/help peeps and causes out there now!).

I invite peeps who 'judge' me a operating in a 'bad' way in this thread, as a result of thinking that Jesus advocated, or that his teachings advocate, being 'nice' to others as a a 'top' (level) priority, to check out what I wrote (about Jesus) in this thread:

Apropos Point 4: "Know that the way we behave towards on another is the fullest expression of what we believe." I wonder what peeps here think Jesus' advice to 'turn the other cheek' REALLY says about what he thought might be a 'good' expression. My understanding is that, far from 'meek' 'acceptance' of whatever others chose to dish out, he was advocating that one 'stand up' for decency (etc.) by protesting injustice in ways that one thought had the best chance of 'shaming' abusers into being 'decent' (etc.). You see, back then, if peeps were to openly/directly react to being police-abuse slapped about by Roman Centurions physically or verbally, they were likely to just give said Centurions the 'excuse' they wanted to shove a spear in their guts. By pointedly (dramatically!) 'turing their other cheek, abused folks could in effect SILENTLY loudly 'say': "Go ahead, you shameless bully of weaker folks, hit me again if that'll get your rocks off - I ain't backing down from and cowering before you, NO WAY, NO HOW!" I think many people misunderstand what they misperceive (because that's how they would like to think of him and his message) as Jesus's social 'peacefull'ness (completely ignoring quite radical statements he clearly made to the contrary, like "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."

A broader quote from The Gita - to (hopefully) 'educate' those who think in 'lesser' terms: "So be it, My beloved fried! I will unfold to thee some of the chief aspects of My glory. Of its full extent there is no end. O Arjuna! I am the Self, seated in the hearts of all beings; I am the beginning and the life, and I am the end of them all. Of all the creative Powers I am the Creator, of luminaries the Sun; the Whirlwind among the winds, and the Moon among planets. Of the Vedas I am the Hymns, I am the Electric Force in the Powers of Nature; of the senses I am the Mind; and I am the Intelligence in all that lives. Among Forces of Vitality I am the life, I am Mammon to the heathen and the godless; I am the Energy in fire, earth, wind, sky, heaven, sun, moon and planets; and among mountains I am the Mount Meru. Among the priests, know, O Arjuna, that I am the Apostle Brihaspati; of generals I am Skanda, the Commander-in-Chief, and of waters I am the Ocean. Of the great seers I am Bhrigu, of words I am Om, of offerings I am the silent prayer, among things immovable I am the Himalayas. Of trees I am the sacred Fig-tree, of the Divine Seers Narada, of the heavenly singers I am Chitraratha, their Leader, and of sages I am Kapila. Know that among horses I am Pegasus, the heaven-born; among the lordly elephants I am the White one, and I am the Ruler among men. I am the Thunderbolt among weapons; of cows I am the Cow of Plenty, I am Passion in those who procreate, and I am the Cobra among serpents. I am the King-python among snakes, I am the Aqueous Principle among those that live in water, I am the Father of fathers, and among rulers I am Death. And I am the devotee Prahlad among the heathen; of Time I am the Eternal Present; I am the Lion among beasts and the Eagle among birds. I am the Wind among purifiers, the King Rama among warriors; I am the Crocodile among the fishes, and I am the Ganges among rivers. I am the Beginning, the Middle and the End in creation; among sciences, I am the science of Spirituality; I am the Discussion among disputants. Of letters I am A; I am the copulative in compound words; I am Time inexhaustible; and I am the all-pervading Preserver. I am all-devouring Death; I am the Origin of all that shall happen; I am Fame, Fortune, Speech, Memory, Intellect, Constancy and Forgiveness. Of hymns I am Brihatsama, of metres I am Garatri, among the months I am Margasheersha (December), and I am the Spring among seasons. I am the Gambling of the cheat and the Splendour of the splendid; I am Victory; I am Effort; and I am the Purity of the pure. I am Shri Krishna among the Vishnu-clan and Arjuna among the Pandavas; of the saints I am Vyasa, and I am Shukracharya among the sages. I am the Sceptre of rulers, the Strategy of the conquerors, the Silence of mystery, the Wisdom of the wise. I am the Seed of all being, O Arjuna! No creature moving or unmoving can live without Me."

As an 'educator' - for the uninitiated - I wish to point out that there is a significant difference better the 'nature' (which I have and continue to 'criticize' others here for theirs) and the 'style' (which I am primarily being criticized for) of something. 'Style' just being a a matter of 'superficial' appearances. Of course, there are degrees of superficiality! All (different!) 'natures' are emanations of/from the same core Essence, which is Life Itself. From The Bhagavad Gita: "O Arjuna! I am the Fluidity in water, the Light in the sun and in the moon. I am the mystic syllable Om in the Vedic scriptures, the Sound in ether, the Virility in man. I am the Fragrance of earth, the Brilliance of fire. I am the Life Force in all beings, and I am the Austerity of the ascetics. Know, O Arjuna, that I am the eternal Seed of being; I am the Intelligence of the intelligent, the Splendor of the resplendent. I am the Strength of the strong, of them who are free from attachment and desire; and, O Arjuna, I am the Desire for righteousness. Whatever be the nature of their life, whether it be pure or passionate or ignorant, they are all derived from Me. O Arjuna! I am the Fluidity in water, the Light in the sun and in the moon. I am the mystic syllable Om in the Vedic scriptures, the Sound in ether, the Virility in man. I am the Fragrance of earth, the Brilliance of fire. I am the Life Force in all beings, and I am the Austerity of the ascetics. Know, O Arjuna, that I am the eternal Seed of being; I am the Intelligence of the intelligent, the Splendour of the resplendent. I am the Strength of the strong, of them who are free from attachment and desire; and, O Arjuna, I am the Desire for righteousness. Whatever be the nature of their life, whether it be pure or passionate or ignorant, they are all derived from Me."

All of the recently made comments, some advising 'change' on my part, are accepted as being respectful of my attitude and positionality. My response is that (I think) my writing 'style' varies (sometimes being more 'difficult' and sometime 'easy' for others to process) depending on the 'state' of my mind and heart at the time, which as I said in my original 'apology', sometimes (often even) gets 'carried away' with 'excitement' which often intensifies in the process of my idea-expression-flow. I do not wish to alter my (writing or any thing else) flow-process to suit anyone else because that would interfere with it its being what it is and continuing to 'develop' on that (isness) basis. The apology was merely meant to communicate that I am aware that people may sometimes have difficulty 'processing' my 'process' , to the point of even electing to simply 'notice it in passing' or to bypass it completely. Having heard and now acknowledging certain 'judgments' (in the sense of 'assessments') shared above as 'making sense', I nevertheless reiterate my choice to continue to write as the Spirit (in me) moves me to and to not 'alter' my 'style' of 'flowing' with IT to suit the 'needs' and/or 'wishes' of particular others. I invite any and all readers to continue to engage with my writing or not as the Spirit of Life moves them to (or not to ). If there is something 'in' you or something 'in' (i.e. conveyed by) my writing which 'pulls' you into 'munching' on the ideas I present, you are very welcome to do so. If not, you are hereby 'advised' not to. I hope readers 'see' that (anyone) trying to to 'get' me to change myself to suit them is basically not honoring ('trusting in'?) the 'benevolence' of the 'divinity' of my Spirit (i.e. of the Spirit as IT flows through me). If your comments (which, if really respectfully offered, will be truly welcome) are going to have have 'an effect' on 'me' (hence on how the Spirit flows through me), they will. If not, they won't. Just don't keep 'nagging' me as though you are a 'loving' and 'caring' (of me and my process) 'advisor' to change so as to have your 'tastes' satisfied. That will incur the same kind of response that Thormas has already 'tasted'. I will be the 'arbiter' in terms of deciding and choosing how 'best' to proceed 'in face of' said commentary. I have also made comments 'advising' (various) people to examine the 'nature' of the way in which the Spirit has flowed and continues to flow through them, being openly critical of and objecting to the 'nature' of said flow when and where it has been condescending, presumptuous and designed to 'get' me to change to suit what I consider to be 'lesser' (in my hierarchy of) values - hence not augmentative of my Spirit flow, but potentally 'diminishing' of its 'radiant' vitality . And I have chosen to not continue to relate to such of them that don't meet my minimum (cut off!) standards in terms of what I regard as important in relation to Life (to the point of being 'sacred'). I advise and hope that others do likewise, here as well as in the rest of their life, based on the value-hierachy that they have organically constructed on the basis of their experiences and observations.

Attempting to get back 'on topic' of respecting-and-harmoniously-engaging/relating-with-other-thought-and-feeling-systems-(if-and-as-they-are-not-disparaging-and/or-violational-of-other-thought-and-feeling-systems-tjhat-is!) ECUMENTALISM: What do interpersonal assertions ('tactical arguments'?) such as "You are mistakenly taking things (too) 'personally' '' "You are being (too) 'sensitive' ", and "I am/we are really just trying to address your issues nicely/helpfully" etc. suggest to you? BTW: I am not just challenging the postures of the apparent (i.e. currently displayed?) 'leaders' here, but wondering about what the spiritual stance and agenda of the 'regular' members here generally is as well. I mean, is the cap P 'Progressive Christianity' movement "worth its salt?" (idiomatically speaking)

This is said to share my thoughts as well as stimulate further thoughts on the part of everyone else here: I agree that I am a 'sensitive' (in the 'sense' of sense-itive , IMO at least) guy. I hope others can also see that I wasn't and am not now 'taking offense' (in the usual sense of the phrase), but, rather, conscientiously objecting to the verbal and spiritual behaviors of peeps who smugly 'advise' other people to be something and/or behave in ways which they would like them to be (falsely IMO) projecting themselves to be in the 'side' of Life (i.e. Creativity, Love. God, Truth, etc.) as though they were doing Life Itself, said others included, a 'favor'. Assumed 'leadership' is presumptuous, aye what?

YIKES! Talk about exclusive-ness masquerading other-inclusive! He that hath ears that here, let him hear! As far as I can see (or hear ) the above statements don't at all (not really at least) relate to the substance what Craig said in is post. Other may of course 'see' (or 'hear') it differently I'm just telling the truth like I see (and 'hear') it, folks - in single sentence'paragraphs' no less! Caveat: I could be deluded!

Yup!. Methinks 'ecumism' as an unqualified 'ideal' is therefore not worth being taken 'seriously'. Hitler thought he was 'inspired' by 'divine' (in his eyes that is) 'spirit' as well! Maybe some here will suggest 'qualifications' (like 'amendments' to the concept of that 'bill') which might result in the discussion of the concept becoming more enlightened/enlightening.

Great! For the reasons I have stated, which apparently aren't 'valid' in your eyes, I don't 'respond' the way you do. News flash: because I am me, not you. I just tell the truth as I as 'see' it, as do you Bro. Some experience that (the parts of what I say that they don't 'soft-cotton to') as an 'attack'. From my point of view I am simply declaratively identifying (what I think of as) a spade as a spade without pretending to be 'nice' just for the sake of thinking or myself as being and appearing to being 'nice' - that isn't one of the personal-social 'mores' I personally don't think of as being especially 'good'. I am always 'personal', BTW - and don't think of that as being a 'bad' thing either. Neither do pretend, as some holier-than-thou's (ahem, ahem) here do, to be or do otherwise. You understand what I say in your way - I fully accept and relate to that as a FACT of LIFE which pertains to everyone. I sincerely hope you will someday make 'peace' with your understanding that I understand what you (and others say) in my way and then proceed to relate to that as (news flash!) me validly (personally) being me and me legitimately (personally) doing what I am here to do. Till then, we are just likely to repeat the current not-so-merry go round circle. So please know, that unless there's evidence of such a change having taken place, this will be my last attempt at communication with you. Sincerely - David

No, I wasn't saying you or anyone couldn; or shouldn't comment on my style or share personal reactions to it. I was just 'calling' (both) you and Burl out on your "nothing personal" and "I'm just saying what I'm saying to 'help' you to 'serve' your purposes", dare I say (condescending?), posturing. Regarding what you say in your last para, have you still not registered what I told you - that I am fine with peeps not reading or skimming and/or not responding to the ideas I share. I hope you understand, in retrospect at least, that you (and Burl) have been trying to foist your preferences off onto me under the guise (even hiding the fact from yourselves) that you were just doing so for my sake (any by extension or the sake of my ideas and values). That's what it looks and feels like to me, and so what I believe has been really going on here. Ecumenism - i.e. 'rubbing shoulders' with peeps who have different sets of thoughts, feelings, beliefs and values than 'you' or 'your' reference group - is great to talk about - but its required more than that to actually put it into practice. I hope some readers at least get an 'object lesson' pertaining to what's involved from what's been displayed above/here. Anyone want to respond to the video I posted the URL to, relating to the comments I made while posting it?

Maybe this will get my 'point' across: That (what you just said) strikes me as being like a parent who, thinking and feeling that he or she is thereby really giving his or her beloved child 'loving' advice and support in order to further said child's soul's 'success' in 'the world', tells him or her that it would be 'better' if he or she took up and practiced 'ballet' or 'the piano' instead of 'going out' for 'sports' (or vice versa). Has it occurred to you that my souls' 'dance-muse-ic' inclinations an preferences may be of a quite different nature than his or yours? Also, has it occurred to you that you are 'dancing' my kind of 'truth'-meaning-full dance with me right here right now (precisely because I didn't just 'graciously' 'accept' Burl's and your 'advice' but made a point of saying it didn't suit my purpose(s)? I imagine not, or else you wouldn't be persisting in your kind of 'lovingness' (of truth, spirit, etc.) in relation to someone as different from you (in said 'truth' and 'spirit' regards) as I am.

News flash - my writing style is personal, it is an expresssion of who I am quite consciously aiming to reach, those who can/will 'hear' my 'voice' (parallel with Jesus's saying intended), i.e. what I wish and choose to express as part of my God-Life-'service'. That you one-sidely (IMO) only see it from and sympathize with his 'points' says something (personal) about you to me (personally), Thormas.

Continuing with the topic of "Ecumentalism" (great word coinage, BTW! ): I wonder what peeps think might be entailed if they were to seriously consider 'ecumentally' including of this Irishman's world-view and belief-system: This is the first of a two part video exposition, which I heartily recommend as being 'right on' (in my opinion, that is) in terms of real 'truth': In it, he speaks of being "religiously" in collision with "the Bible" - meaning what's been includedThe Old Testament and so widely embedded in 'Western' cultural thinking about mankind's 'place' in 'nature'. I wonder how anyone using 'Christian' (progressive or otherwise) as a personal- or group- identity moniker can 'ecumanize' (lol) with such as he and vice versa. An interesting 'problem' to be considered and hopefully playfully resolved, methinks.

High Five, Craig! The idea of God being 'unfathomable' means we can't get to 'the bottom' of the ocean in this regard, but we sure can enjoy splish-splashing about and occasionall going on some 'deep' dives, both ideationally and experientially, in IT. As you say, thankfully! Woohoo!!! [To everyone else: I presented a link to the article that Craig references in my first reply to Burl. Since that is 'water under the (screen) bridge' right now, I just want to add that it is also downloadable from the Articles page of my website which should be accessible via my profile should you be interested.]

I think you miss my point, Thormas. I'll agree with you on this maybe when and if I feel more understood and (so) included. Am working (in my own way!) to be understood, but as the saying goes, "It takes two to tango!"

Fiirst and foremost, Burl, pleas know that I responded the way I did to you first comment to me the way I did because I 'saw' and experienced it as not being 'complimentary' Second, the "must" in your statement is presumptuously 'dictatorial', unacceptably (by me) so. My guess is that you are so steeped in an attitude of self-'right'eousness that you will probably remain blind to this fact even tho i use your own words to point it out to you. Sp please know that this statement is really an effort on my part to share what I 'see' as being the case here with others here. Thirdly, your disclaimer of "nothing 'personal' intended" rings hollow to me. Your statement in response to my posts have been quite personally implicative. The joke-line "Who died and made you 'God' here" comes to mind. I don't know if this will work as intended, but all of the above is intended to get you off of what I 'see' as a being like the proverbial 'high horse' and involved in a truly meaningfull discussion of pros and cons of the ideas being presented.

I said 'generally' - which indicates that the 'character'ization wasn't 'total'. I agree with you on this.

That proposal strikes me as me as a proposal to 'enable' them to sit back and wait for things to suit their 'tastes' - people have to be in touch with their 'hunger' of they are to not look at 'food' with an attitude of "I'll eat it if I like how its tastes" or "I'll eat it if you 'cook' it in a way that 'pleases' me." As you can tell, I am 'seeing' folks 'of this generation' (not just here, but here too) as generally being a bunch of 'spoiled' (by too much indiscriminate parental 'spoon-feeding') kids. Jesus's portrayal of God as an indulgently 'loving' 'Father' by saying things like "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? " was fine as a 'correction' of old jealous/demanding/punitive (for not being 'obeyed') johovic 'father' image. But the pendulum has swung so far in the 'opposite' direction that there is a need (here for example!) of a 'reverse' correction in the direction of taking persponal responsibility for one's 'creativity' and not expecting 'feed me what I like' mother/fathering. What's coming down the road is going to be far from 'coddling'! I am just a messenger in this regard (with all of the implications of this word), Bro: The Times They Are A-Changing!

Just occurred to me that a humorous way of putting this would be to inviteyou and others to (if necessary) expand their LGBT group(s) tolerance/acceptance philosophy/stance to include 'me' (along with my completely unusual writing 'style' of course!). It could be called LGBTDavidsun tolerance/acceptance - the 'Davidsun', though not actually my given name, designating 'me' as a singularly unconventional (in terms of the 'majority') being who, though unlike any other, may nevertheless really be worthy of open-minded consideration! I hope that, though it may strike some as having an unpleasant 'edge' to it, you at least 'get' all this is truly said in joy-full repartee 'fun'. Added P.S. Of course, my whole 'argument' in the above regard will carry no weight with someone who is LGBT tolerant/accepting only because he or she thinks, feels, and believe that LGBT folks are only the way they are by virtue of their having no 'choice' in being the way they are - I.e. 'forgiving' them ' in Christs' name because such folks 'unfortunately' jes can't hep being the way they are!