“Spiritual” in its Response to John Patterson's Post


Responding to "Spiritual"
Our soul is the marriage of the Holy Spirit to our unique DNA configuration, thus our body becomes the vessel that hosts and defines that soul, which abides in a spiritual form long after that body has dusted away. And that spiritual form, made from this marriage of spirit and flesh, retains all the memory, emotions and cosmic karma gathered during those mortal throes.

The "demons" that eat away at our soul and hold it back from transcendence, are manifest in our base desires. Our act of free will comes in choosing to succumb to or resist those desires on a daily basis; which is why every soul is unique. And why some of them find paradise and others torment.

Greed, vengeance, and the lust for power are three of the primary "neocon demons" that influence us as a nation, and were directly involved in our march to war.
Submitted by John Patterson

"Spiritual" Response
I honestly did not expect you to reply, John. Most people who are committed do not waste time sharing their commitment with someone who does not share their commitment and especially on someone so obviously uninterested in a commitment. And you listened. You have not in your answer overwhelmed me with your obvious commitment. I am not blinded by your response. I am however still confused, this time because of a few words you used that spark an emotional response from me I’m pretty sure you did not intend.

I think first I should clarify my position on life in general. Zorba the Greek said “Life is what you do before you die.” I would state my position somewhat differently. I would say “Life is staying alive. Joy is in continueing to stay alive.”

Your position seems different still, but I can’t quite decipher it even though you have done a really good job simplifying it. I have a million questions, but hesitate to ask any because I’m pretty sure many of them reflect my emotional response rather than any real understanding of what you are trying to share

One of my problems is with the word “marriage,” especially in reference to the bonding of Holy Spirit with DNA. Marriage implies mutual consent, but such a nonconsensual bonding seems to suggest a kind of rape. If bonding, a more emotion neutral word, had been used, I could have related to the statement as a precursor to a voluntary relationship with God (assuming the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Christian God and therefore God if you believe in only one God). I was not exactly blinded by the word “marriage,” but it was kind of like using a floodlight for a streetlight. I had to avert my eyes. I would be interested to know if there was some specific purpose in using “marriage” or if it was simply a kind of exclamation point.

“Demons” is another word I found distracting emotionally. Demons are irritating little creatures much like flies or mosquitoes in my emotional response to them. I speak mythologically of course because I do not believe in demons though I am familiar with the concept. I would like to know the purpose for using the word. I am pretty sure I missed your real intent.

“Base desires” is especially troubling for me. I am an evolutionist and I suspect you are referring to the instincts that have ultimately made me possible by keeping my ancestors alive since the beginning of life on Earth. I believe they still have much more value than we credit them with. You name greed, vengeance and the lust for power as some, and I can agree that these natural instincts need to be controlled, but I believe they serve a useful purpose and I would mention that there are other instincts (emotions, intuitions) that can direct these sometimes overpowering feelings towards nurturing and sustaining goals in life. Perhaps you could share other “base desires” and why you consider them undesirable. Please don’t call them evil. That’s another emotional word that means many different things to different people.

“Neocons” is an emotional word for many people. I find the term amusing, but placed as it is at the end of your response it is like a detour sign without a suggested alternate route. I’m pretty sure you dislike neocons, but I’m not sure what you consider neocons to be or why you dislike them.

I realize we are probably worlds apart in the paths we follow and even in the reasons for choosing our particular paths. I would understand why you might not want to continue to share with someone so distant theologically, but I do find your journey fascinating and if you wish to continue to share, I am more than willing to listen and to share right back.

If I do not hear from you again, I take this opportunity to wish you good fortune on your journey and I encourage you to continue determining your own path.