Holy Ghost or Pleroma?

As I sat today re-reading an earlier post an idea occurred to me and I wanted to run it by you to see what you think. Here's what triggered it. I wrote: 

"When I was a Christian in the dogmatic sense, I never once felt the Holy Ghost. I did feel(what I now recognize) pleroma trying to bust down my mental doors, but there was nothing Ghostly about it, not in anyway the Holy Ghost has ever been described as a spirit or essence of god."

With the vibrancy and overwhelming love and sense of completion people report feeling when the "Holy Ghost comes upon them" do you think it's possible that the Holy Ghost for hylics/somatics, for your typical literalist Christian is really pleroma?!! 

Is it possible? Has he been trying to sneak in like this all along? Is this just one way literalists are waking up? 

Maybe the people who dogmatically read and study the Holy Ghost are only looking at the tip of the iceberg. Maybe, just maybe, those people who actually experience it are tapping into something those dogmatic intellects aren't seeing at all. And maybe it's not what they've been told it is at all. 

What do you think about this?

Why Sacrifice?

Why do literalist religions always require a sacrifice of some sort? Where does this come from? I don't have have so many answers here as much as some thinking points I've compiled. If you can add to it then please leave a comment and we'll keep this a work-in-progress. The whole thing has confused me since I was a child and if anyone has any wisdom to share on this issue I'd be grateful.

Before we get started just a bit of a note about where this whole blog post got started. Being in the middle(literally- wrist deep in fur) of shaving my Siamese cat(Little Big Mouth, 20 years old) to help her deal with the heat, pleroma blurted out something which made me pause.

"I am willing to sacrifice my past but not my future."

Shaving a cat naturally made me think of animal sacrifice, something I'm sure Big Mouth did not appreciate. But after I got done royally pissing her off(she likes be shaved, it's the bathing part afterwards she doesn't like) I sat down and wrote this list. These are all the ways literalist religions ask us to sacrifice in order to receive special knowledge or simple acknowledgement as a sane and humble human being so that you should not be sent down to roast in a fiery place when you die:

1. The practice of sacrificing one of your children to the church in service. Even the old royal families still did this up until the middle of last century. One child would go into the military and the other would be given to the church. My guess is that since the church always held such power that the royal family was essentially giving their 'tithe' in this manner while also having a set of eyes and ears inside the church which were related to them.
2. The Old Testament says that Yahweh wanted a sacrifice of a child(but sike! It was really just a test) to see if the father would do it.  Moab really did do it, though; although this time God said that he didn't have to do it. Why the change of heart?
3. Eating and drinking the Host and his blood. He 'sacrificed' his body for you to partake of it. "Do this in remembrance of me" takes on a decidedly cannibalistic theme when you put it in a certain light. This is hylic/psychic magic, coincidentally. The Church has no gnosis. They're big on ritual and low on content.
4. Martyr your body for 'the cause' meanwhile hopefully killing a lot of other people. Because you know, it's all about spreading the word. Nothing spreads like wildfire faster than news of 1) someone cheating on someone 2) an insane fundamentalist killing themselves and a lot of other people or damaging valuable property.  "My religion is better than yours so I am going to kill/hurt you!!!" This loony-toon declaration of love for a deity is just asinine. "Martyrdom was identified early in Church history as "baptism by blood", enabling martyrs who had not been baptized by water to be saved." Wikipedia search: baptism. So because you've been killed for the faith then your own blood acts as a baptismal font? (Why would you have to be baptized in the first place?) This is sickening on many levels, the most appalling one being of course that a person can do many atrocious things in their life and only with their last act be declared a martyr as long as they died "for the faith." I'm all for appreciating a good deed but the crown of 'martyr' is disgusting when taken in that context, especially when it supposedly gets you a lofty place up in Heaven beside the Big Guy with or without dozens of virgins. Being with him again should be it's own reward, not the chance to be known as a martyr.
5. Jesus, or rather God sacrificing his 'first born' son to... himself? Why would God need to go through the physical act of sacrifice? Gnostics generally all have varying belief in this act. We tend not to discuss it too much. But even if you do take the act seriously, why would one person's(divine or not) material body sacrifice placate God enough to then save every person who asked for it afterward? A million people crying for salvation before Christ lived isn't enough but one man's is? Personally, I think that's kinda conceited. The majority of gnostic texts exonerate Jesus' act by saying it wasn't 'what you think it is,' and that is a topic for another blog post.
6. Animal sacrifice. Why would God need a dead animal? And why oh why would he delight in sniffing the wafting aroma of it's burnt carcass? Peace offerings and guilt offerings... what is the point? Why can't you just say you're sorry instead of butchering some poor innocent animal or giving up grain which could be used to feed your belly. Is this what they call 'paying the piper'? Is God the piper to be paid? ... and doesn't that make him a spiritual extortionist? "Give me dead offerings or I'll roast you in Hell." Yep. That's extortion.

After completing my list of horrifying sacrifices deemed necessary for literalist religious acceptance I compiled a list for what I would be willing to sacrifice for my belief in the All/the totality of salvation/pleroma/the Good God, and many other names which I am sure you have heard me use.

1. I am willing to sacrifice untold hours in my day/night to study anything worthy he sends my way, no matter how mundane, silly, bizarre, or mentally/spiritually challenging.
2. I am willing to sacrifice the resentment, anger, sadness, embarrassment, and shame I felt in the past and move on, trusting him to guide me. 
3. I am willing to sacrifice my sleep so that he may tell me ridiculous jokes at 4am, hug me, and send me dreams showing me just how much I am loved or remind me of things I have forgotten, both good and bad.
4. I am willing to sacrifice financial security in the present and future to make sure I'm not partaking in any business ventures which are morally questionable. 
5. I am willing to sacrifice my personal safety in order to stand up and speak up for what is right when not doing so would be easier and safer. 

"Truth Made Names" and "Rulers" in Gospel of Philip

Tying directly in with the theme of 'Names' in the Gospel of Philip, there is another small section within the book which speaks of how words' meanings are twisted when in different people's hands.

Truth Made Names

Truth made names in the world,
and without them we can't think.
Truth is one and is many,
teaching one thing through the many.

I interpret this to mean the many sects of literalism being used as a gateway or a stepping stone toward gnosis. 'Teaching one thing'(morality/goodness/the divine) through the many(many sects). 'Truth' of course meaning the good god/pleroma/the All.

The literalist traditions are easier for people to comprehend and when they are outgrown then the names in the literalists texts can be seen through for their alternate meanings. Like literalists using 'God' to signify the one to be prayed to while gnostics use the same world to mean the All/pleroma/the fullness/the totality of salvation and all that ever was/the divine spark which we all share. See the difference in meaning? Same word but completely different significance to different people. The same concept pertains to 'Christ.' Literalists use the word and name as a noun relating to a specific person while gnostics use the word to signify a tone or feeling of affection toward one another, speaking of one another as bright, Christ-like sparks. 'Christ' in the hands of a gnostic takes on another layer of meaning because Christ was not just a person to most of us, he was a gateway or a metaphor to what we all need to tell ourselves about what is true, and this is that dogma enslaves and then kills while freedom saves.

Layers of meaning, that is what gnosis is about. When we're ready then the layers will be revealed and we will grow in maturity.

This next section in Philip I find particularly succulent to meditate on. It's pretty clear in its meaning.

Rulers

The rulers wanted to fool us,
since they saw we were connected with the good.
they took the names of the good
and gave them to the not so good
so with names they could trick
and rope us to the not good.
As though doing us a favor,
they took names from the not good
and placed them on the good.
They knew what they were doing.
They wanted to grab those of us who were free
and make us eternal slaves. 

Again, twisting words to mean one thing or another when interpretation of the hearer is what matters. The archons are the rulers being spoken of; the ruling Ideas of power and intrigue in this world. They're like plague bearers whispering in people's ears, instigating war and other forms of disharmony which would divide us into factions of In or Out, 'other', and varelse or ramen. The truth is that we are all One in pleroma. We are all good and all need to see it but get so caught up in splitting hairs that it seems like we want to argue more than live in peace.  

Quiver Full

In honor of the Duggar family announcing their twentieth pregnancy I am posting a link to a wonderful letter from an ex-Quiverfull mother. I found it a riveting read. Hope you enjoy it.

Holy books are great if you read and comprehend them for the METAPHORS they are. I think the Quiverfull cult is pretty sick in that regard. I'm not concerned with the world's population, honestly. We tend to thin ourselves out fairly well with wars and diseases. I think the Quiverfull movement is sick because of the convenient patriarchal societal expectations set for the women. I have a helluva time virtual schooling my two demanding kids and they get all the attention they could possibly crave from me!! And sometimes I just have to tell them that it's time for Mommy to be alone for a while.

How someone deals with more than four kids is absolutely mind boggling. I only have two and this is with the support of a husband who is not only financially supportive but my own emotional Coach in the 'honey, please don't tear your hair out. I love you. I'd hate to see you with bald spots just because the kids are trying to drive you insane' corner of the ring. He goes to bat for me every day and I don't bow down to him.

Reading that woman's story made me feel quite a bit better about how well I'm holding it together here in our house. I might go a bit foamy-at-the-mouth some afternoons trying to cook dinner, wash clothes, get grading done, play interference between brothers who're trying to provoke a fight over whose friend should come over, etc.... But we survive. And we THRIVE! But you add another kid in the equation here and I'd be needing some pretty hefty tranquilizers. (For me, not the kids.)

I'm not saying that some people can't make magic happen in their house and manage to make raising ten kids look like it's nothing but I do wonder how much Xanax their popping behind that bathroom door a few times a day. And if you're so stressed out how can you tend to your own spiritual needs when you have God's Army waiting to be instructed, potty trained, and tucked into bed at night?

On Atheism

When I first wrote the review on Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" a little more than a week ago I had no idea the pain I would feel so soon afterward concerning atheism. I feel like I have had my heart literally ripped out of my chest. Why? Because I have now had to revise my theory concerning atheism in regards to walking a path toward gnosis.

For some time now I've been following an atheist blogger by the pseudonym of Dromedary Hump(Dromedary is a breed of camel, btw) who owns the Atheist Camel blog. Bart(his real name), also wrote a book called The Atheist Camel Chronicles. It's very well received on Amazon.

Bart, who more fondly goes by the nickname "Hump" on his blog produces at least four articles a month; each article has always been a well organized attack on literalist religion. Which, as a gnostic, I'm pretty accepting of to a certain extent. Pointing out and learning from the irrational behavior and idiosyncrasies of literalists is important in growth toward gnosis. If you can't figure out where you've been then how can you identify where you want to go? Identifying those speed bumps is essential.

In Hump's blog articles I have always tried to nudge my two-cents in wherever I can as long as the topic allowed me to point out the differences between literalist and non-literalist religions. He has been shocked at times at how much I agree with him on certain topics. He has educated me on atheism and so all in all I have to say that it was a copacetic relationship up until now. Mutual teaching and learning going on between us and mutual respect concerning our difference of opinion on whether or not there is a divine presence in the universe worth revering. Until last week.

There has always been a certain ruthlessness and volatility in Hump's friend, NewEnglandBob's posted comments. This proved to be an excellent way to watch, in action, two atheists who don't necessarily agree with one another one hundred percent of the time. I considered Hump to be the more moderate atheist and NEBob to the angry militant variety-- until something snapped in Hump's head sometime last week and that last shred of sanity which was holding him back from becoming a full fledged pissed off militant atheist- left the building. It is gone. Au revoir. Never to be seen again, I fear.

The blog post titled "Those Damnable New Atheists!" was the sad train wreck which broke my heart.

During my original reading of the post I was nodding my head and agreeing with Hump right up until the last paragraph of: "But careful examination of the contributions of theists in real world terms: i.e. science and medicine by notible theists like Gregor Mendel, Christian Barnard, Jonas Salk, Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon and other personages of faith were made INSPITE of their theistic superstition, not BECAUSE of it. Had they not extended themselves beyond the precepts of their religious indoctrination and the ignorant falsehoods of scripture, they’d have contributed nothing."

A red flag went up in my mind at his presumption of the brainlessness of all theists. I wrote:

Angel said...

Quote: "INSPITE of their theistic superstition, not BECAUSE of it. Had they not extended themselves beyond the precepts of their religious indoctrination and the ignorant falsehoods of scripture, they’d have contributed nothing."

Sorry, Hump, but I have to disagree with you on that part. Yes, 75% of literalist theists claw at real science like kicking and screaming jackals with nothing else to do. HOWEVER, there is something to be said about the wonderful spark of intuitive reasoning which comes from the All(Not Yahweh-remember?). This isn't in spite of anything. If the person is not listening they wont hear a damn thing and just blithely go on their merry way. But if they ARE listening then real progress can be made in all areas of science a person is working in.

Even some gnostics get deaf from time to time, because of all the material responsibilities of their lives. So we're not completely immune to this.

Granted, our republic has been twisted now to the opposite side of the spectrum, but I wonder what would have happened if Plato had not been so inspired to write on the gnostic principles he did, among other things....

Be careful who you point your finger at. Not all theists are brainless because not all theists are literalists.

A theist with the pseudonym of DSJulian began an email war with Hump and posted their dialogue in the blog post's comment area. It was vicious. I could only watch in horror as Hump and NEBob proved that atheists are just as guilty of lacking rationality and good judgment as literalists. There were gross errors in historical information being bandied about and then misinterpreted to heap more ignorance on top of everything. Like I said- train wreck.

In the end, I said good-bye. I just couldn't watch any longer. It was obvious nobody was grasping the differences between literalist and non-literalist religion. I tried, I really did. But I failed in making these distinctions clear the past few months.

"Congratulations, Hump. You have now graduated to being a militant atheist in my book.

Apres tu, Julian.

I'll let myself(and my reasoning and rational mind) out; no need to show me the door."

Hump replied:

Angel, Hmmm.. I have always been a militant atheist. Ithought you understood that.

I hate to see you go. But I will not attribute to a god, a supernatural force, or a thinking senitinel being anything having to do with life, the universe, creation etal; nor will I allow disinofrmation to go unchallenged.

It was such a door-slam-in-the-face that I didn't reply. But DSJulian did after a while. He said,

"Angel, like me, thought you were a rational, reasonable person. Obviously you are not because once you are pressed with the facts, you have to resort to name calling. And as the Hump-God gets challenged, you have to respond by getting angry and accusing others of being angry. In the meantime your anger is being clearly demonstrated by your increasingly frequent spelling and other errors. You are becoming more and more like the God you say you reject, except you don't have the power to create anything..."

The melodrama went on for a total of sixty comments before finally dying down. Hump began deleting all of DSJulian's comments around post number forty-five or so.

In the end, I have revised my theory concerning atheism on being a possible stepping stone toward gnosis. Before this whole blogstorm I thought that any atheist was capable of using their rational rejection of literalism as a catapult toward gnosis when they were ready. I stand corrected. Now I have to say that I believe only 25% moderate/calm atheists stand a chance of gnosis and under 5% of the militant atheists will ever come around. They can't get rid of their hate long enough to see through, around, or under the blindfold which is holding them captive.

Debating with atheists isn't useless or pointless. I mean, this is a person's soul we're talking about here! It's important stuff! But with what I've found so far debating with atheists is tedious and more often than not, fruitless.

Coincidentally, I picked up the book "The Dawkins Delusion?" from the library a day or so prior to this blogstorm. Once my temper settled I dug into it and attempted to make some sense out of what had happened. Finally, I would be able to read a theist's deconstruction of Dawkins's argument against God!

For the most part I was disappointed. "The Dawkins Delusion?" was a fairly superficial engagement of the numerous arguments Dawkins proposed, however it did make one valid point: you cannot keep rehashing the same old arguments over and over again with nothing new to contribute if you are a SCIENTIST and want to be taken seriously as a SCIENTIST. And no, making up new theories of "memes" and "God viruses" aren't real science. That requires lab work.

Believing in evolution does not make me a disingenuous theist, contrary to what Dawkins would have me and everyone else believe. I don't feel disingenuous. I feel pretty darn confident, actually! It is possible to be a theist and believe in the good work of science. So why does Dawkins lump all theists into the same creationist camp??? Because otherwise he'd have to admit that there is a gray area and that not all theists are "mentally deficient!" And Dawkins can't stand gray. It's either his way or nothing.

A scientist taking the pulpit seems disingenuous to me.

And on the real science front..... {This news video} about British scientists solving the "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" mystery says something quite remarkable about our quest for answers. With every answer we receive from science it appears that our final answer concerning divinity is a long way off. We need to be patient and in the meantime not tear each other apart.

From how I look at the conclusion to this test it was a stalemate. The chicken could have dropped from the sky or it could have evolved. It's really kinda ironic, when you think about it! The poor creationists and evolutionist are looking at each other like, "well... crap. Now what do we do?!!"

Long story short, folks, either the divine is proven to exist or not. Science appears to be able to assist with the ongoing debate, however it seem quite hilarious to me that so far both sides have been slamming their heads into walls with the conclusion of their tests. The results are conclusive but... not. Answering one question only leads to ten more. Such is life.

The Literal Truth

I don't agree with the last 30 seconds but it's still funnier than heck from an open-minded gnostic perspective. The last round is especially funny because of the sheer number of ways the quotes contradict themselves.

If it's ok for Mary....

...then does the fact that Jesus was a bastard mean that it's ok for me to have premarital sex?

Ok, I know that was inflammatory. And it was meant to be. Because the Bible's definition of marriage can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. It deserves realistic discussion; discussion based on LOGIC not on some omniscient God-factor which doesn't make a lick of sense no matter how you twist it or turn it inside out. Cocking your head to the side and looking at something sideways doesn't make it true. It just makes you look dumb and people are going to ask if you have whiplash or if you need to sit down.

Book of John 4:6-26 is a perfect example of why the definition of marriage needs to be discussed.

Jesus and his disciples are traveling and they stop in a town. The disciples leave to go the the market and Jesus sees a woman at a well. He asks her to draw him some water to drink. She is astounded he is talking to her at all because of the different regions they come from. (The commandment to love thy neighbor hasn't kicked in. And quite frankly, has it ever? I'm anxious for it.)

Verse 11 is clearly indicative that the woman has not a clue what Jesus is talking about in the beginning. "The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou has nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then has thou that living water?"

Only when Jesus indicates after the fact that he was talking about a different well of water than the physical one before them does she understand that he is talking in metaphors.

Why then is it so difficult for us to understand that the entire Bible is meant to be read metaphorically? Why do people insist on reading it for a literal interpretation and then end up being Younger Earthers and all sorts of other nut jobs who cast contemptuous eyes on science?

Anyway, getting back on point: Jesus tells the woman that the type of water he is speaking of isn't the type of water which leaves you thirsting for more. It is the type of spiritual 'food' or substance of which one takes and never thirsts again because the soul is content with truth and knowledge of God.

To prove that he is not some wandering, raving lunatic he points out that instead of having only one husband she actually has five. At that point the woman is shocked with his statement, calls him a prophet, and then states that she'd heard Jerusalem was The Place to be in the presence of holy people and to learn godly ways. What Jesus says next at verse 21 and 22 is truly prophetic in a gnostic sense:

"Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet, at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews."

(Remember, the Jewish Mystery religions were the very heart of what we now call the Gnostic Bible codices and tracts. Kabballah is a cousin of this range of Mystery teachings.)

The woman at the well is not rebuked by Jesus. Not condemned and told that she is going to hell for sleeping with five different men. Jesus simply acknowledged her actions in order to show her that he knew of her intimate secrets.

Verse 17 and 18:

The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, "Thou has well said, I have no husband:
For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."

There are a few ways to interpret this statement of Jesus'.

1. She is a widow five times over and is now on her sixth husband but has not consummated the marriage yet.
   
2. She has had a marriage-like bond(emotional) with and/or slept with five men but this sixth man is not one with whom she has a marriage-like bond with and so is not counted by Jesus as being a current husband.
   
3. The author of the verse was drunk and miscounted/miswrote what was meant to be: "For thou has had five husbands, and he whom thou now has is also thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." Bringing her total husbands up to six.

Conclusion: judging from any of these proposed interpretations anyone you have a sexual relationship with and/or a 'marriage-like' bond with is counted as a spouse.

I find it interesting that the only time the Bible speaks of segregating women from the men is during menstruation. And Jesus talked to women as he would men. There was no favoritism. No coddling of the 'gentler sex.' Many gnostic sects have taken this to mean that a true platonic love was possible between men and women as equals. To love in the Platonic sense was to direct one's mind and soul to the divine, to reach toward love itself. This profoundly unbiased emotion has been examined since before Plato's dialogue in the Symposium. It's an idea which is as old as humanity's first couple.In the fifteenth century Platonic love even became fashionable.

Wiki on marriage:

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."^[9] In recognition of a practice by the Nuer of Sudan allowing women to act as a husband in certain circumstances, Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons."^[10]

Edmund Leach criticized Gough's definition for being too restrictive in terms of recognized legitimate offspring and suggested that marriage be viewed in terms of the different types of rights it serves to establish. Leach expanded the definition and proposed that "Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum"^[11] Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures.^[12]

Duran Bell also criticized the legitimacy-based definition on the basis that some societies do not require marriage for legitimacy, arguing that in societies where illegitimacy means only that the mother is unmarried and has no other legal implications, a legitimacy-based definition of marriage is circular. He proposed defining marriage in terms of sexual access rights.^[6]

(Keep that 'circular logic' bit in your mind by Mr. Bell as you keep reading.)

Now here's an interesting quirk of Roman Catholicism:

"Divorce is not recognized, but annulments predicated upon previously existing impediments may be granted. Offspring resulting from annulled relationships are considered legitimate. The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion."

Going back to our woman-at-the-well scenario, if she had divorced her five(or six) husbands and then remarried then that means she could be baptized but not receive communion. How much sense does that make in relation to Jesus' words to her; an offering of knowledge and direct communion with God? It doesn't make sense. It's contradictory.

Book of Mathew 16:6 "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

And yet the Catholics will recognize an annulment. God made the bond but man is willfully separating it under the guise of Peter's divine patronage.

Why is it that children from an annulled marriage are considered legitimate? If the marriage "didn't exist in the first place" as what is necessary to agree upon for an annulment to take place, then how can the children be legitimate?

I have to agree with Duran Bell's statement concerning sexual access being the basis of marriage restrictions and legitimacy issues being called "circular logic." Convenient circular logic at times. And at others a whole messy can of worms with legitimate/illegitimate children being squabbled over.

And getting back to Mary's bundle of joy-- surely Joseph felt cuckolded by God. Poor guy.

Big Love

The article I am reposting for you here(below) came from MSN.com's front page today in the Politics section. Promising news for gays and lovers of freedom everywhere.

Talking about politics with my ten year old son a few nights ago I realized something monumental- Americans are, at heart, anarchists and rabble rousers. That says something as to our state of mind even five centuries after Columbus landed on our eastern shores. We broke from Europe, gave them the middle finger, and said "hasta la vista, baby." We're not afraid to create a new system of thought when it suits our desires.

And yet where are we today concerning gay rights, after five centuries of bloodshed for our immense freedoms? Way behind other nations. The only thing holding our nation back from proclaiming in one voice that all people - everyone - regardless of race, creed, and SEXUALITY, are all created equal and have the same inalienable rights is literalist religion. Namely Christianity.

Some gnostics may disagree with me here and say they've seen some scripture from such and such book which proclaims gay behavior is a sin against God, immoral, etc. etc. But I ask you this: if God is love and we have a mandate from God to love then how exactly are we loving our gay/lesbian neighbors, friends, and family by telling them that they are less than equal? That they should not have the right to love who they wish however they wish as long as it is not hurting anyone else?

I commend Obama for this action. I truly believe it is a step in the right direction toward Big Love, which is our first priority not as "God fearing" but "God loving" people. We must love each other as much as we love God. How can we do less? We are a part of Pleroma's body and to do less means hating and hurting ourselves.

Federal benefits extended to same-sex partners
Obama orders extension for workers under existing law

updated 9:11 p.m. ET, Wed., June 2, 2010

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is extending child care, medical leave and other benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

Obama on Wednesday directed federal agencies to immediately begin allowing domestic partners and their children some of the same rights available to spouses and children of employees. That includes child-care services and subsidies, expanded family and medical leave and relocation and other benefits.

Obama's memorandum covers only benefits that can be extended under existing law, without congressional action.

Obama said in a statement that while his directive was an "important step on the path to equality," existing federal law prevented him from taking further action to provide same-sex domestic partners with the same benefits offered to heterosexual married couples.

He called on Congress to swiftly pass a measure that would address that discrepancy.

It's the president's latest step on gay rights. He's also supported a rollback of the military's "don't ask don't tell" that governs gay service members.

Book Review

I'm Perfect, You're Doomed
By: Kyria Abrahams

This author's biography on her childhood within a Jehovah's Witness family is outrageous, funny, and a stark look at just how strange 'those people down the street' really are.

Kyria tells of a cocooned life where Witnesses are holy and the worldly folks around them are going to hell. The catch is this- heaven on earth can't last. Not when your own mother is having an extramarital affair, your father is so bored with his own unemployed life that he hides out in the asbestos filled basement. Demon possession via second hand china, college is evil, and the only way to get out of the house is to get married. So Kyria does. And when hit with the hard facts of life ... that's when the story really gets funny. I wont ruin it for you.

Quite an entertaining read. The only real problem I had with it is that it wasn't so much an exposé on Jehovah's Witnesses as it was a personal story of a youngster within a fundamentalist religion coming to terms with her obsessive compulsive disorder, bipolarism, alcoholism, and chronic housewife boredom. Kyria teaches us that it's all too easy to blame the other person for making our lives miserable, or what we think of as miserable, since the ideal life is always going to be out of reach.

(By the way, the Spanking Room really does exist.)

Chapter 10 excerpts during her elementary school years:

Lately I'd been getting the distinct impression that Sarah was looking for excuses to be alone.

This became clear after she told me that she needed to do homework -- for two months.

"Can I come and do my homework with you?" I asked.

"Kyria, you don't even do homework. Ever."

True, by this point I was pretty much failing every single one of my classes and was in the guidance counselor's office once a week. But so what? I wasn't going to college, so it wasn't like I needed high school for anything.

College was at best unnecessary, and at worst atheist boot camp. My parents hadn't gone, and on top of that, we couldn't afford it. At least I'd been in the gifted class where I'd gotten "feeling smart" out of my system. With my fourth-grade knowledge of Logo in tow, I figured I already had a leg up on a large percentage of American public school graduates.

If you dedicated your life to Jehovah, he would provide for you. Taking matters into your own hands by going to school was like saying you didn't believe God could really handle the apocalypse, so you were gonna stock up on M-80s. It was the equivalent of investing in a huge block of real estate in downtown Pompeii.

***************

One of my greatest fears as a child had been accidentally touching an apostate. They picketed our assemblies and always blocked the entrance to the Civic Center by standing in front of the snow cone venders. Apostates had crazy eyes and yelled things like, "J-Dubs lied about the end of the world, 1974!" I wouldn't read their signs for fear of being possessed. I ran past them with my eyes closed and my fingers in my ears. I ran past them because my parents told me never talk to an apostate.

Talking to an apostate -- someone who used to be a Jehovah's Witness and was now disfellowshipped -- was seen as a disfellowshipping offense in itself. This, we were told, is like letting a demon enter your mind. We were not allowed to be in contact with any person who might offer counterarguments against the Jehovah's Witnesses, unless we were going door-to-door and proselytizing them, in which case, we were protected by the Holy Spirit.