|
Thoughts, spiritual experiences, happenings and insights
from the woman who discovered the Personal Connector Word to God
POST A COMMENT TO MY BLOG VIEW POSTED COMMENTS
This blog is archived monthly. Click the links below to see archived entries.
|
||
|
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAINOne of the interesting and nice side effects of this terrible
economic downfall is that many things considered to be "old-fashioned" are making a comeback.
I keep seeing things about these delicious Whoopie Pies--this scrumptous
dessert that is selling in some city bakeries for $45/dozen. I've even seen "knock-off's" now advertised for much less by
a commercial company. These new-fangled "whoopie pies" are nothing more than what my mom used to make. We called
them "Gobs." They are two soft, chocolate cookies (cakes) with a fluffy white cream in between them. My mother did not buy
desserts way back when, she made them. These were quite economical, so "gobs" were a staple in our household. And yes,
they are delicious.
I chuckle at all these "financial advisors" (Suzie Orman included)
who are telling us what we NEED to do now. It's what I learned from my parents "way back when." Don't buy things on credit;
only buy things if you have the money to pay for them. What a novel idea! Save money. What a novel idea! Bargain-shop. What
a novel idea! Don't live beyond your means. What a novel idea! Actually, not so novel. This was the way things used
to be before credit cards. Yes, the old ways are returning. Thank God!
There was actually an article in Time magazine (I think) that
said the most important asset now was your job. Let me re-state that for those of you scratching your heads
and saying, "What? Wasn't your job always the most important asset?" Apparently not for the younger generation. Apparently,
the more preferred methods for making money were through real estate and investments. Gee, and here I thought having
a good job was number one for everyone. As I said, the old ways (having a job) seem to be making a comeback.
Now gardens are even all the rage. I remember that in my college days
one of my main duties at home was to spade the garden. I commuted to college and lived with my parents because I
didn't have the money to do otherwise--fancy luxury suites on campuses were NOT the norm in my day. And we weren't foolish enough
to entail huge debts via loans in order to live high-on-the-hog in some upscale campus housing. They used to have "dorm
rooms" where two people each had a twin bed, a desk, and a bureau. Not even a private bath, just a common one
down at the end of the hall. But, I couldn't even afford that. I had to commute from home. But, I digress.
Back to the garden. I used to spade a very large garden with
a shovel in the spring and my parents planted everything from tomatoes to peas to carrots to onions to green beans. And we
ate what was planted all summer, with the rest canned in glass Ball jars by my mother. Now they are making a garden at the
White House and acting like they've discovered the keys to the Universe. I'm sure neither Barrack nor Michelle will be out
there spading it with a shovel. But, I'm sure that not only gardens, but "canning" soon will be the trendy thing
to do. Maybe we will see Michelle holding up her prize jar of home-made pickles soon. Everything old is new again.
Then there are Goodwill and Thrift stores. You've got these people
writing about them as though they have discovered an overlooked mother lode. My sister has been shopping these stores for
so-called "designer brands" and other household items for years. She thinks it's silly to pay such exorbitant prices for something
you can get for a few dollars. She's quite upset that NOW people are just discovering what she has known for years. Apparently,
they are getting in her way and competing with her for the "good stuff."
I think the thing that caused me to "guffaw" the most, however, was
a story on TV about the "return of sugar." Remember sugar? I do. Only 16 calories a teaspoon and all-natural. It actually
makes things sweet and leaves no aftertaste. It doesn't cause cancer and it doesn't alter your brain chemisty like all the
"low-cal alternatives" in pink and yellow packets. And, unlike fructose corn syrup, it does not create all the dietary and
obesity problems that we Americans have been the recipients of since manufacturers started putting it in everything. Good
ol' sugar--making a comeback! Hurrah! The next thing you know, they'll be telling us to drink Cool-Aid, made with sugar and
water, because it is such a natural and cheap drink. Better than soda! At least, that's what we drank as kids, that
and the homemade rootbeer my mom stirred up in the basement and we corked by hand.
So, everything old is new again. The pendulum swings back. The cycles of
life go on. Rumor has it that people are even starting to get "more spiritual." How about that? I guess since many people
now have less money and more troubles, looking for signs from God isn't such a ridiculous thing to do. Maybe turning to God
has some validity. Maybe they'll put down their cell phones and meditate for a change. Maybe they'll talk to each
other in person more and try to uplift each other's spirits. Maybe they'll lend a helping hand more often. Maybe they'll notice
their environment, as they slow down and smell the roses. Maybe some of them will even discover their "personal connector
word to God." Gee, what a nice "side effect" from a troubled economy!
Friday, March 27, 2009 CRISIS MODE VS. PREVENTION MODEI've noticed how our society has moved away in its thinking
from a "prevention mode" to a "crisis mode." There really are two ways to approach any problem or disturbance in our daily
living. Either we take the correct steps so that a problem does not occur, or we wait till a problem occurs
and then try to fix it.
Our current U.S. healthcare system is a prime example of "crisis mode"
thinking. Instead of putting money and research into things that would help us PREVENT certain diseases, we instead dump money
and resources into things to TREAT diseases. It has been said by many people that cancer will never be cured, because if it
were cured a lot of people would be out of work. Drug companies make their money not on PREVENTION, but on TREATMENT. Thus,
"crisis mode" is encouraged and "prevention mode" is discouraged.
The same thing could be said about terrorism. Terrorism could be "prevented"
through improving relations between all peoples. Through diplomacy, through creating better economic conditions, through better
communications--but, of course, this takes time, energy and a belief in the goodness of all people. It is much easier to just
go into "crisis mode," and go to war. It is much easier to engage in a "battle against terrorism" than putting the policies
into place to prevent terrorism in the first place.
Our current financial CRISIS is another example of this. We all know
by now that if certain things were done to PREVENT this economic collapse, our leaders would not be scurrying around trying
to fix this CRISIS. The same thing could be said about our current Environmental CRISIS. Had we put policies in place to prevent
the pollution of our planet, we would now not be in "crisis mode," trying to save it.
Prevention, however, is not as dramatic, sexy or attractive as "crisis
mode" is, and I suspect that has a lot to do with why our society has drifted into "crisis mode" on everything these days.
Prevention does not make for important news stories or great cable talk show chatter. "Prevention" is old-school and
boring. It rarely makes the big bucks. And we've become a society where being entertained is more important that being
peaceful and productive. Money trumps the right thing. "Prevention mode" is much too boring for 21st century America. But,
wouldn't a little "boring" be nice about now?
I once attended a conference where one of the first women to rise to
the top in the ranks of a state police force was speaking. She was now the Commissioner of the State Police. She boiled down
the difference between the way men think and the way women think to a simple concept. She said that women work to PREVENT
things from happening, and that men prefer to let things happen and then relish in solving the CRISIS. Her observation
impressed me at the time in its simplicity and truth. I began to observe men and women in the workforce and even
in everyday home living. The more I did, the more I found her statement to be not only valid, but enlightening.
Think about it. Look around. Most mothers spend their time trying to
PREVENT any misfortunes falling on their family members. Often, trying to do that, they gain a reputation for being "nags."
Most fathers ignore things until the CRISIS occurs, and then prefer
to charge in like a hero to "fix" the situation. Women in the workforce often don't get the credit they deserve, because
organization and planning that prevent mishaps go unnoticed. If they plan a conference that goes off without a hitch, no one
notices. But if a man misplans a conference, and the speaker doesn't show up on time, and he pulls in a last-minute speaker
to "save the day," he is an instant hero. "Thank God for Bob and his quick thinking," we all say. No, more accurately, we
should all say, "Too bad Bob didn't plan well for this event. He caused this crisis in the first place."
I'm not saying that the intentions of both men and women are not noble.
I'm convinced that they are. But, look around at the situations in your daily living and see who is "preventing" and
who is "fixing the crisis." Then ask yourself, which way makes the most sense? Masculine energy and thinking have ruled the world for quite a few years now. Feminine energy and thinking need to
re-emerge and take us back to a time when we PREVENT bad things from happening instead of letting them happen and then putting
our time and energy into trying to FIX the CRISIS. It won't be as exciting, but it will be more peaceful and productive.
Concentrating on the good--concentrating on what it takes to make things
right and happy and peaceful at the START--will also help us on our spiritual path. The more people who think and operate
in "prevention mode," the better our earth will be. Let's raise human consciousness to a new level. Let's look for the good
and work to prevent bad things from happening in the first place.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 SANDBAGS AND SPIRITUALISMI feel for the people of North Dakota who are filling
up all those sandbags this week in hopes of preventing disasterous flooding in their towns. I'm originally from the Johnstown,
Pennsylvania area, so I know only too well what destruction flood waters can bring. That being said, I just don't understand
why in this day and age of technology, people are still filling up sandbags. I mean, shouldn't we, by now, have a better method
of diverting water from going over its banks than sandbags?
When you watch the news, you see these long lines of people, shoveling
sand into burlap sacks and handing them, one to the other, over long distances to be plopped next to a raging riverbed. "How
wonderful," the news anchor proclaims. "We're working as a community," the smiling mayor says proudly. I say, "What 1940's
movie did you people just drop out of?"
Surely there must be a better, more efficient way! This is the 21st
century, for God's sake. I'm no engineer, but how is it that the most modern country in the world hasn't figured out a better
way to divert flooding disasters than this archaic method? Filling up sand bags? Where is the National Guard? Where is the
Army Corps of Engineers? Where is FEMA? It seems to me that some kind of mobile, easy-fitting steel something-or-other would
have been invented and exist by now that can be plopped on the riversides. Maybe some version of giant Lego Blocks or something.
Certainly, something bigger and stronger and more efficient than sandbags! Why don't we have them and why don't we have a
method of rushing them to places that need to keep water from overflowing their banks? We should have warehouses full of these
things.Could the answer be that there is no big money in saving poor little towns from flooding disasters?
This leads me to a broader question. Why is that we progress in some
areas of life and remain stuck in the past in other areas of life? Surely, by now, we should have a mode of transportation
that is better, cleaner, and smarter than the automobile, whose engine is basically the SAME as it was in the early 1900's
when it was invented. (Computers, mobile phones and I-pods change almost monthly, yet the car is still the car is still the
car.) We all know we should have been riding around in electric and/or solar-powered cars years and years ago. But the oil
companies prevented that. The result: a toxic environment that may still yet cause the demise of Mother Earth.
When we watched the cartoon "The Jetsons" as kids, we were assured
that by now we'd all be propelling around in our own little hovercraft, yet here we are, still driving gas-guzzling, streamlined
versions of Tin Lizzies. Yes, we've added GPS systems. And power windows. And other gadgets. But the engine is still
the same gas combustion one Henry Ford devised for his "horseless carriage." Why do we put up with this obvious obstruction
to change?
Another thing currently in the news that deals with our inability to
change some things from the past is the number of school days. Obama says kids need to go to school longer; I'll be surprised
if he can get this one through, even if the original reason for children getting 3 months off was to help harvest the crops.
How many kids today are harvesting crops? Yet, we stay tied to the past and the 180-day rule. People will say we can't change
that now; the kids will be mad, the parents will be mad, the teachers will be mad. Even if there is no good reason to keep
it the way it is.
One of the best short stories I ever read (and taught) was "The Lottery,"
by Shirley Jackson. If you've never read it, you owe it to yourself to look it up and read it. The story deals with a community
who continues to do something just because it is tradition--because it has always been done. No one questions it, because
it has always been done. The longer something is done a certain way, the harder it is, it seems, to get people to see that
perhaps it no longer has validity. Sometimes, we aren't willing to change unless the current situation affects us personally.
Traditional religion is like that--many things are done just because it is tradition or because it has always been done that way. Or, "we have always believed that way." Isn't it time to start questioning why we are doing what we are doing? Why we are believing what we are believing? Maybe it's time we seek the truth in things and think for ourselves. Maybe it's time we try new ways. Or should we just all get in line, smiling, and continue to fill up those sandbags? Sunday, March 22, 2009 THE INTERLOCKING WEB OF INDIVIDUAL DECISIONSIn my daily perusal of hometown obituaries, I came across
a name this week that had been stuck in my psyche since I was in my early twenties. I had never met this man. I had never
seen his face or spoke a single word to him, nor he to me. He did not even know of my existence, I'm sure. But in many respects,
a decision that this man made years ago was responsible for the path that my own life took. I owe him a debt of gratitude.
My life might have been quite different if he had made a different decision years ago at what was probably just one small
crossroad of his own life.
When I was seeking my first teaching job straight out of college, the
job market for teachers at the time was extremely tight. I was having little luck finding a job. In fact, in desperation (perhaps
like others in these current economic times), I had actually accepted and settled for a job at a local Dunkin' Donuts
for ten cents more an hour than minimum wage. The reason they were going to give me ten cents more an hour was because, impressed
by my newly minted college degree, they were going to make me an instant "shift leader." Here I was, a bright and shining
star eager to show the world my stuff, now destined to put chocolate-iced donuts into pink boxes and hand them to hungry customers.
To say I was depressed would be an understatement. But the decision the man in this week's obituaries made years ago saved
me from this fate.
This man, who was already teaching English at a local high school,
had applied for the same open teaching job at another school for which I had applied. Because he had more experience,
and because he was also a popular local disc jockey and could teach broadcast communications, he was picked as number one
for the job. I came in as "the second choice." However, when he was offered the job, for some reason, this now deceased man
turned it down. He decided to stay at the district for whom he was currently teaching.
I'm sure when he made his decision, he weighed all the pluses and minuses
related to himself, his students, his school district and his family. Little did he know his decision would also
impact a young, single woman who at the same time was studying the "Dunkin' Donuts training manual" (yes, there was such a
thing) in anticipation of starting her donut-selling career in a day or so. But, impact her, it did. He turned the job down,
she then was offered the job, and by the grace of God (and this man), she began what became a successful and rewarding career
in education. There were many other branches off this original path through the years for me, to be sure, with many other
crossroads and decisions leading me to where I am today--but I will never forget this first one. I will never forget the man
in this week's obituaries.
Our life on this earth is affected not only by people we know and have
intimate contact with--but also by people we do not know. Our individual choices have ramifications and ripples that we are
unaware of--each of us affects others by our daily decisions because the whole of life is a web of interlocking puzzle pieces.
No man is an island unto himself. Indeed, we all are one. What we say, what we do, where we go, where we don't go, who we
meet, who we don't meet--it's all like being in a giant computer where changing one number in one sequence can change the
result of the whole outcome. We are pretty powerful individuals, aren't we? No one's life is ever insignificant. Much like
George Bailey in the movie, It's a Wonderful Life, each of us has more impact on the world and each other than we
can even imagine.
Rest in peace, Mr. S. M. And thank you for making a decision years
ago that changed my life for the better.
Thursday, March 19, 2009 NOW EVEN THE DEAD ARE TWITTERING!Recently, I wrote separate Blog entries about
obituaries and about Twitter. (See the Blog entries below.) Well, as luck (or "synchronicity") would have it, I now am
blogging on both topics--because apparently, now, even the dead are "twittering" or "tweeting."
And here you thought that only the living believed it was
interesting, important, newsworthy, or necessary to tell the drab details of their everyday living to all! Well, what's good
for the living is apparently good for the dead. It's only a matter of time, I'm sure, before Facebook entries for the dead
will be popular.
Check out some of these REAL lines I've read in REAL obituaries recently:
"She liked to mow to the lawn."
"She enjoyed involving herself in her niece's lives, entertaining,
playing cards, crocheting, knitting, making pizzelles and homemade spaghetti sauce, eating cake and ice cream (especially,
spumoni) and popsicles, watching movie "classics," reading newspapers, shopping at Market Basket and Conzatti's, and traveling."
"He enjoyed watching sports, playing cards and being with
his friends at the Wheel Tavern."
"He loved animals, whittling and spending time with his
family."
"She enjoyed reading and challenging crossword puzzles,
tending her house plants and always had a soft spot for homeless animals."
"An avid Bridge and Scrabble player, she also enjoyed soap
operas, TV Mass and movies."
I could go on and on, but you get the picture. (After awhile, you aren't
sure if you are reading obituaries or on-line dating ads.) In all fairness, it is not the deceased, but the survivors, who
are doing this. I can't imagine that any of these dead folks would have thought it important to chronicle their likes and
dislikes in this manner in their last bio. It's the survivors who are sitting down with the undertakers and coming up
with this stuff--what they think are the salient points of their beloved's life. (And sadly, most often, it's what they were
doing in their last, older days here on earth. Almost as if the first 70 years didn't count. No one ever says that a 90-year-old
man enjoyed mountain biking. It's always playing cards.)
I'm sure the survivors are just trying to paint a picture of their
loved one in a positive manner. However, the influence of reality TV shows, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and dating ads seems
to be drifting more and more into the annals of the dead. And you
have to wonder what the departed souls are thinking as they look down and see that the loved ones they left behind think the
most important aspects of their lives were where they shopped, where they drank, or that they liked to cut the lawn.
Makes me shudder to think what might get written in mine! I should
never have told that niece of mine that I love Stella Artois beer! And I better get cracking and accomplish some
big things, or my obituary, too, will be relegated to chronicling my daily activities of eating, killing time, and hanging
out with my family and friends.
So what's the point of this blog and what's it have to do with spirituality,
you ask? Well, it might be a "stretch," but here goes.
People are beginning to think that life is all about eating, drinking,
and socializing. (It must be important if that's what is appearing in obituaries.) Can't we focus on bigger ideas,
events, and issues in our blogs, our Twitters, our news, and our obituaries? As for the living, how about thinking about
and discussing where we came from, why we are here, who we can help, and how can we connect with God (just for starters)?
People have a need to validate what they are doing every minute
of their lives by sharing it with the world--even in the obituaries. It's like a massive Global Self-Esteem Crisis or something.
The focus has become less on ideas, issues, making the world a better place and more on ME, ME, ME--look at ME,ME,
ME. This can't be a good thing.
Shouldn't we honor the dead by highlighting those things that "made
a difference" in this world because they lived? Because, after all, EVERY ONE OF US MAKES SOME DIFFERENCE. We all have a mission
here; some more newsworthy than others, but we all affect the people we come in contact with each day. Don't tell me Uncle
Jim liked playing cards; tell me that by doing so, he brought joy to an isolated, lonely person.
When we "twitter" away a person's life in an obituary, we "twitter"
away all our lives. Humanity can only move forward when we "twitter" less, and seek the truth more.
Monday, March 16, 2009 BETTER DEAD THAN ALIVEI don't know if it's because I now live far away from my
"home" state and the people I grew up with, or if it's just because I'm getting older, but I find myself reading more obituaries
these days. When I scan the "hometown" papers, I make it a point to scan the obituaries. In doing so, I've noticed something
that I never knew before--everyone who dies is an absolute peach of a person! Maybe that line from the song
saying "only the good die young," really should just say "only the good die," because if you read the obituaries, everyone
listed in them is a wonderful person.
Here are some actual lines I've read recently
in obituaries:
"He was a very kind-hearted, friendly man who will be missed
by all."
"Mrs. B. thoroughly enjoyed spending time with people.
She would always open her home to entertaining family and friends."
"N. centered his life around his wife and family. The evening
before his death, his wife and family celebrated his life at his bedside with a bottle of Italian wine, stories, and countless
embraces and tears. He will be loved and remembered by all for his kind and humble manner and unselfish ways. Always available,
always helping others, his life exemplified his love and devotion to his wife, his children, grandchildren, and friends. Throughout
his painful illness, he never complained, and always reassured us, "I'm good".
"Active until her final days, J. will long be remembered
for the loving and active role she played in the lives of her family & friends."
"More than just a mother, she was the best friend to her four
girls. She was very courageous and always felt the need to help other people."
"A. enjoyed gardening and walking with his dog, Molly.
He will be sadly missed by his wife, M., and his entire family."
"Her recent life has been devoted to her four grandkids,
for whom she was fond of planning fun adventures. She greatly enjoyed visiting her children and their families."
It used to be that an obituary contained only the facts. A person's
life was summarized in a short paragraph telling such things as spouses and children, workplace, birthplace, deathplace, etc.
There was no editoralizing in an obituary. But, then again, there never used to be editoralizing in news stories either, whether
it was in the newspaper or on TV. We all know that entertainment and opinion have pushed hard news to the sidelines. So, just
like everything else today, the days of factual obituaries have gone the way of the slide rule. People feel a need
to immortalize their loved ones' virtues. People feel a need to editorialize in the obituaries. People feel a need to paint
a loving picture of the deceased. Whether they were loving or not.
I guess no wife-beaters, drinkers, gamblers, or just plain crabby people
die anymore. I guess the inconsiderate spouse, the hateful and unjust father, or the poor mother are immortal. Because, if
you read today's obituaries, all the dead people were really great human beings. Which brings me back to the title of this
blog: I think we are all better when we are dead than when we are alive!
So what can we learn from this? Well, we can learn two things, in my
opinion. One, if you want people to say nice things about you in your obituary, start changing your ways so they have something
to say that's good. And two, more importantly, maybe we all can learn something from the dead. Maybe we can learn that if
all of us actually lived the way these departed souls are described NOW, while we are ALIVE, wouldn't the world be a more
pleasant place? Why wait until you are dead to be wonderful? Why not make the loved ones in your life want to sing your praises
NOW? Be that friendly and loving and giving person now. Don't wait until your obituary is written.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009 DON'T YOU JUST LOVE SYNCHRONICITY; I REST MY CASEIn today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette there was an
article about the church putting up the bishop's house for sale for 2.5 million dollars and putting all the expensive furniture
and holdings "in storage." Wow! I wonder how many centers for needy babies and children THIS small drop in the Catholic water
could fund? You have to read this article to believe it! I rest my case! (Please see my previous Blog entry.)
Read the article here:
Monday, March 9, 2009 WWJC (WHAT WOULD JESUS CHARGE)?Have you ever noticed that the bigger and more popular
a spiritual or religious leader becomes, the more he or she charges? They start out all sincere, warm and fuzzy, but it doesn't
take too long until they realize that, hey, you can make money on this "religious thing." After awhile, it makes you wonder
what is more important to them: their original message or how much money they can make off of this message.
Organized religion, of course, has taken the concept of making money
to an art; they try to utilize something called "the tithe." This is where, like in the old days of serfs and kings,
you give up one-tenth of your income to the church. No questions asked. Interesting concept. For medieval times, that is. Not
so interesting today.
Catholics don't use the word tithing, probably because one-tenth
just doesn't sound like enough to them. The Vatican just instills the idea that you should give, and they print up a giving
envelope for almost every day in the year. That's the real reason for so many saints. :-) The fact that millions of
dollars have gone to settle pedophile priest lawsuits doesn't cause them even a moment of embarrassment or hesitation. I'm
surprised they haven't printed up a special giving envelope just for that.
If you have ever toured the Vatican (I have), you cannot come away
without thinking how opulent and ostentatious that place is. All that gold. All that expensive artwork. All those artifacts.
All those Mercedes. I'll bet if you liquidated even 50% of that stuff (what is it, but stuff, after all) you would have enough
money to build centers to care for all those babies they are telling people they have to have instead of abortions. Now, there's
a novel idea. Putting your money where your "so-called" principles are. Stop ranting about abortions; start providing for
the babies you want to "save." They certainly have the resources to do that. But the Pope, of course, would
have to give up a few golden rings and gem-laden hats. Not to mention the Mercedes.
When I first discovered Joel Osteen, I thought he was pretty nifty.
He seemed like the real deal. Here was a guy who was advocating New Thought concepts (positive, forgiving God) all the
while wearing the Bible as an overcoat. Joel starts by getting his congregation to hold up the Bible and chant
a traditional prayer; then he spends the next half hour giving a wonderful, uplifting New Age message. So no one really catches
on, he sprinkles a few Bible stories in along the way to make his point. And it works. And he has a great following. And he's
getting people to be more positive, more happy, and focused on the right things.
But now the donations at Joel's church are flowing in. And the books
are selling and bringing in big bucks. His church is now big business. Just like the evangelists before him--Oral
Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Jim Baker, etc.--he's become a celebrity. (Oldtimers might remember Oral Roberts shouting, "Something
good is going to happen to you!" in much the same way Joel does today.) Joel has the advantage, however, in believing in the
New Age concept of the "law of attraction" and that "prosperity and abundance are good things." But even Joel needs to
ask himself what his predecessors failed to ask themselves. Simply, "What would Jesus charge?"
I adore the work of Marianne Williamson, Eckhart Tolle, and even (in
his early days) Wayne Dyer. I know all three believe deeply in the spiritual messages they espouse. But, unlike Jesus, they
aren't exactly walking the backroads in a robe and rubbing elbows with the poor folk. Jesus didn't go on cruises where He
gave a workshop, then jogged down afterwards for a Spa treatment. Jesus didn't have blockbuster books. Jesus didn't charge
for his insights; he just gave them freely.
I would have included Deepak Chopra, but this character showed his
true spots on Bill Maher's HBO show and I've never been able to regain any respect for him since. I guess Deepak figured
since Bill advocates atheism, no spiritual types would be watching that show. That's why, I assume, he chuckled and announced,
"Yes, Bill, I'm a prophet--spelled P-R-O-F-I-T." Wow, talk about coming out from behind your red glitter glasses! To him I would ask, what would Buddha charge?
There is nothing wrong with abundance, prosperity or having best-selling
books. After all, you have to get the message out some way. It's not like you can just round up 12 disciples and go out and
"spread the word." That isn't what makes me ask all these spiritual and religious leaders WWJC (what would Jesus charge)?
God knows, they have to support themselves. And God knows, I hope someday to publish my own novel (click on Novel on the navigation
bar above). It's what they are doing with the money when they get it, that brings their sincerity into question.
Are they using it to advance their spiritual principles? Or just dumping
it back into more publicity? Are they helping others with it? Or are they hiring third-party firms to send even more direct
mailings for even more donations? Are they pouring all the proceeds into a luxurious lifestyle instead of doing what Jesus
would have done if He had obtained such wealth by selling His message. Oh, wait . . . isn't that what most
churches are doing today? Selling Jesus' message? Too bad Jesus didn't get a copyright on it, he'd be making millions
in royalties! But, my guess is that Jesus would take those royalties and give them to the poor. WWJD? He'd practice what he
preached. WWJC? He wouldn't charge, He'd simply say, "Follow my lead." Jesus believed in a direct connection with God.
He showed us it was possible. And He showed us it didn't cost a single dime.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009 A NATION OF TWITS?It seems the nation is all a-twitter these days. Barbara
Walters announced on The View that she tweets; Good Morning, America today announced that they are all tweeting;
John McCain, who never even used email back when he was campaigning, is apparently twittering about pork barrel spending;
even my local newspaper has a link to a Twitter page, as they are now twittering the news.
Twitter, it seems, is the place where you go just to record, in a very brief
way (since the number of characters you can type for any one "twitter" is limited), what you are doing at
that moment. Apparently, the fact that you just ate corn flakes, or that you watched a dog video on Youtube, or that you just
came back from the grocery store are activities people are dying to read about on the internet.
The real interest, of course, is not your daily activities
or mine. The interest, it seems, is what celebrities are doing at this very moment. The idea is that all of us are sitting
around during the day wondering just what Barbara Walters, the latest rap artist, our favorite politician, or a celebrity
weatherman is doing. The more mundane their activity, the better, apparently. I guess it makes us feel we've entered their
private, daily lives. I guess it either makes our life seem less boring or their lives seem more boring--in any event, it
evens things out in our mind and twittering makes us all happy. And connected.
Excuse me for being an old fuddyduddy, but I just don't get it. I hardly
care what so-called "celebrities" are doing that are newsworthy, outrageous, or earth-shattering. The fact that their antics
have replaced real news on TV and the newspapers saddens me enough. I surely don't need to know their eating,
bathroom, and daily TV-watching habits.
Here's something to ponder: an asteroid almost hit the earth
a day or so ago. Yes, it was only 48,000 miles away (only about one-fifth the distance that the moon is from us) and
it could have pulverized over 800 square miles of earth (as one did several years ago in Siberia). But, did you hear about
it? Was it forefront on the news? Of course not. The Bachelor proposed that day--took back his proposal--proposed to another
woman--then, CAN YOU BELIEVE IT--he cried! The Bachelor cried!
Have we become a nation of "twits"? You decide. Isn't it time
that instead of desperately trying to connect with superficial people on the "boob tube" (which television was once called
years ago) via a new technology that might aptly be called "the twit pit," we try to connect with ourselves and GOD instead?
We are all looking for meaning, but we are looking in all the wrong places. Stop twittering, and spend some time alone with
your thoughts. Your thoughts, not some so-called celebrity's thoughts. Get quiet. Look inside yourself. Be
aware of your surroundings. Start looking for your Personal Connector Word to God. Trust me, it will be a lot more fulfilling
in the end.
|
||
|
|
|