Re: a comment on A Time for More War by dougsoderstrom	27-Sep-02/6:40 AM
Dear knickytoy: I have decided to transform the website into mine own image. Since I, as a close relative to God's wife's husband, am, and always have been, a politico-religious being, I am therefore choosing to allow the website to become as it was always meant to be-----a natural extension of mine own being. I am the website and the website is me. I am the I am. He who accepts my word has life, and he who does not accept my word has not life. It would be better for one to never question the "I am." For in qustioning the "I am," one will have chosen to "no longer be"--------choosing to have removed himself from a state of being to "a state of non-being." I am sorry to be so very blunt with you, however since I am the I am, I have no choice but to tell you The Truth---------- which is that which I am. Doug Soderstrom, Ph.D.
Re: a comment on God and Country by dougsoderstrom	19-Sep-02/8:00 AM
Dear Dark_Angel: You asked that I respond to your question concerning God (the possibility of His existence) and the possibility that Christianity is bullshit (I suspect that here you more specifically mean "pure and unadulterated bullshit"). Well now, as to the question of God's existence you, as well as I, know that that question cannot be answered by us mere mortals. It is quite simply an assumption that each of us, for our own selves, (for all kinds of legitimate or sometimes rather illegitimate reasons) make----and, of course such unprovable assumptions are made on the basis of "faith" (and of course "faith" can sometimes be spelled as "ignorance and laziness," and in the more mature cases, it can be spelled as "a fairly reasonable axiomatic assumption concerning life". But nevertheless, it is just an assumption that we, as human beings should be allowed, by each other, to make, without the need for undue argument or debate. Now, in regards to the question of Christianity being "bullshit or not." Well, my own personal opinion on this is that Christianity is quite surely a matter of "pure and unadulturated bullshit" to the extent that it leads to hate, prejudice, injustice, and war. On the other hand, to the extent that Christianity leads each and everyone of us to be more kind, more gentle, more caring, more able to put ourselves into "the shoes of others," more willing to seek justice for all (especially those who have been persecuted), more humble, and more willing to say that "I am sorry and that "I forgive you,"---------to the extent that Christianity leads us to want to become more like Jesus Christ is the extent that Christianity (along with the other great religious traditions of our time)is absolutely essential to the survival of mankind----as well as our survival as individual human beings. In conclusion then, to the extent that Christianity (or even Buddhism, Hindsuism, Judaism,or the Moslem faith) enables our world to move toward the one and only acceptable goal of mankind (that being peace and love manifested by our own behavior on the earth) is the extent that our relationship to that which is most ultimate is good. What do you think? Doug
Re: Hamptons by bondjedi	18-Sep-02/2:07 PM
Very nice!
Re: Tugboats by poetandknowit	18-Sep-02/1:44 PM
Dear poetandknowit: Absolutely wonderful! I gave it a nine. It flows like an existential river moving into the bowels of our being. Doug
Re: a comment on God and Country by dougsoderstrom	18-Sep-02/1:15 PM
Dear Dark_Angel: In regards to your last comment that I did not see listed-----the one concerning the fact that "conservative religious fundamentalists" are not capable of responding to the concern that I raised in regards to "How a God of love would allow 90% or more of His creation to end up going to Hell for an eternity"----well, I agree with you. I have raised this question with fundamentalists at least 1,000 times with at least a thousand people over the past 45 years, and I have never to this day ever heard any of them say anything that makes any sense at all. And quite simply said, there is nothing that they can say to defend themselves. Nothing that they can say to get them out of the bind that they have created for themselves! In fact, for any one who may eventually read what I just written, I dare you, as a fundamentalist to defend yourself. And if you can, you are a better man than I ever thought you could be.------Anyone, I mean anyone, go for it and try to make my day!! Doug Soderstrom P.S. Good luck Dark Angel-----and feel free to visit with me any time-----Your friend, Doug Doug
Re: a comment on God and Country by dougsoderstrom	18-Sep-02/12:51 PM
Dear Dark_Angel: No doubt people have a right to question the validity of Christianity----especially given all of the wars waged, people killed, and evil perpetrated in the name of the Christian god. However, the person of Jesus Christ is a totally different thing. Personally, I feel that Jesus, because he lived such a wonderful life of showing us how to care about others----how he spent so much of His time (His effort and His teaching) loving and caring about those aroud Him who were hurting, poor, rejected, and despised, He has become one of the best (if not the best) example of how we might live our lives. This is why I believe that one can rightly choose to have a negative opinion of Christianity, while yet respecting The Man Jesus Christ----and perhaps even choosing to want to live like Him. Doug
Re: a comment on God and Country by dougsoderstrom	18-Sep-02/12:39 PM
Re: a comment on God and Country by dougsoderstrom	18-Sep-02/12:37 PM
Dear Dark_Angel: First of all, you do not need to call me sir just because I have a Ph.D. degree in psychology---we can dispense with the formality. Yes, you are right ----we could simply do away with Christianity as, you say, a bunch of "bullshit." And I have considered that alternative quite seriously myself. However, at least for me anyway, that would be like throwing out the "baby" with the proverbial "bathwater." And that would not be a good thing to do. In many ways then I have chosen to throw out the "bathwater of Christianity." But, on the other hand, I have decided that, at least for me anyway, it would be best to "keep a hold of the baby"------that is, keep ahold of The Baby Jesus. I say this because, in my own mind, he grew up to be one of the most (if not the most) wonderful example of how to live a life. He went on to show us how to live a life of love and compassion toward other fellow humanm beings. And he did such a thing , after a while, realizing that if he didn't stop doing what He was doing, that he would be murdered for his commitment to the poor, the hurting, and the wretched rejects of His time. So I would say that Jesus Christ, as a human being, was willing to place the value of love (His ultimate concern for other human beings around Him) above and beyond His own need to stay alive. And that, at least in my own mind, is what makes Jesus Christ (but not Christianity) such a wonderful model for human life. Doug
Re: a comment on God and Country by dougsoderstrom	18-Sep-02/12:00 PM
Dear Dark_angel: That is a wonderful question indeed?----as Eve's partaking of "the fruit" could no doubt refer to the temptation to have sex with Adam. Good point, indeed! Of course, the more general question that you are referring to is that of the degree to which God is omnicient (that is to the degree that God knows everything----even perhaps if knew ahead of time what every human being who He created was going to do before he or she did it. Which then brings up the largest question of all-----The most important question for Christendom--------How could it be possible for an omnicient God of love to require every human being to make a conscious verbal assent to the fact that Jesus Christ is their own personal savior knowing full well that there would be many who would not have a reasonably good opportunity to "accept Him" realizing that every single one of these human beings would spend an eternity of agony in Hell-----Also given the fact that only 1/3 of all human beings on the earth today identify themselves as Christians and that perhaps only 1/3 of that 1/3 have actually accepted Jesus Christ as their own personal savior, then it would be reasonable to say that all conservative fundamentalists (e.g. Southern Baptists) must believe that approximately 90% of all human beings living on the earth today will end up spending all of eternity in Hell. So, in conclusion, assuming that human beings had no choice to choose to become a human being, the question can be refrased this way: How could it be possible for an omnicient God of Love (a God of compassion and concern for the welfare of those of whom he has created) to create, without any choice on their own part to become a human being), human beings of whom at least 90% would end up spending an eternity in the agonies of Hell? What do you think about that Dark_Angel? Doug
Re: a comment on God and Country by dougsoderstrom	18-Sep-02/11:27 AM
Dear Dark_Angel: I am not sure what you mean by the term "genericity"----does that mean that you are referring to the generality or perhaps even meaninglessness of my opinions??? Please reply. And as to your comment concerning the length of my responses----I assume that to be a form of criticism. But then again, everyone has the right to his or her own opinions. Doug
Re: Recent History by Nicholas Jones	16-Sep-02/10:22 AM
Dear Nicholas Jones: I really like your piece! I think that you very well summed up some of my own thoughts. Keep up the good work! Doug
Re: a comment on God and Country by dougsoderstrom	16-Sep-02/10:17 AM
Dear Balthazar: I think that we see pretty much "eye to eye" on all of this. Jesus is a "really good man!" But so is Mohammad, Buddha, and some of "the others." Although I, myself, may personally be quite partial to Jesus (my own personal bias), the Christian Religion (as well as the other faiths in relation to Mohammed, etc.), has done a lot to give others a very bad taste in their mouth in regards to major religions such as Christianity (and, as you say, Hinduism, as well.) Doug
Re: a comment on God and Country by dougsoderstrom	16-Sep-02/9:54 AM
Dear Balthazar: I guess that my own understanding of a haiku may not be perfect, but I think that what I have written falls within the more general guidelines of haiku. And, by the way, my last line, I believe, does "turn a twist" in relation to the first two lines. The first two lines allude to Robert Bellah's idea of "civil religion."------the coming together of God and country, and most people in our culture, as well as those in most other societies, think that this is the naturally right thing to do. However, in line with a new book that I am now reading ("when Religion Becomes Evil" by Charles Kimball), there is little doubt in my mind that the blending of these two factors (that is, that of God and country) has caused more people to die, more wars to be waged, and more evil to be perpetrated than anything else in the world. And given this quite lethal combination of factors, there is little doubt that the two most pernicious religions of all are that of Christianity and the Moslem faith. So at this point in my life I believe I can no longer refer to myself as a Christian. However, that being said, the more that I seem to withdraw from the Christian Religion, the more that I feel myself drawn to wanting to be able to someday become (to someday be able to think and act like) Jesus. Doug
Re: a comment on God and Country by dougsoderstrom	16-Sep-02/9:30 AM
Dear zzinnia66: Yes, I will say hi to Jesus for you-----However, is there anything in particular you would like me to tell him for you when I do get around to talking with Him? If so please let me know. Doug
Re: a comment on God and Country by dougsoderstrom	16-Sep-02/9:27 AM
Dear balthazar: Well, I do beg to differ balthazar, but I do believe that given a broader description of a haiku, that this could be considered to be a haiku-----but since you said so, why is it that you consider my poem not to be a haiku? Please explain. I would have said something about "planes being launched from 'fucking' mosques," but that is just not my thing. As I am kind of into criticizing the hypocricies of my own faith-----That is what I seem to be best at doing. Doug
Re: a comment on God and Country by dougsoderstrom	16-Sep-02/9:18 AM
Dear god'swife: With a compliment like that, you can not only print and share my poem with any others with whom you choose, but I shall, as a result, live the next week with a special smile on my face knowing that I am perhaps in the process of learning how to write poetry. Thank you god'swife, and if you have time, please tell your husband (god?) that I do appreciate everything he has done for me up to this point in my life. Your Friend, Doug
Re: a comment on 9/11 by dougsoderstrom	13-Sep-02/1:13 PM
Dear beakism: I appreciate your help. Thank you very much. Doug
Re: a comment on 9/11 by dougsoderstrom	13-Sep-02/1:05 PM
Dear limness: Thank you for your kind response. I do appreciate it. You are, no doubt, a good human being! And the best to you in "our mutual search for immortality" as poets on poemranker. Love---------------- Your Friend, Doug
Re: a comment on 9/11 by dougsoderstrom	13-Sep-02/12:56 PM
Dear limness: I would certainly be willing to refrain from beating "the dead horse"-----but as it turned out the horse wasn't yet dead when I was in the process of continuing to beat it. Also as it turned out my point was not "always clear"---as I feel that you really never did get the point. Based upon my poem, did you really believe that I was "a reactionary conservative" that tended to support George Bush in his desire to go over and invade Iraq???? Honestly, did you really think that? And as for the "emotional part" all of this (that is, regarding what my poem is about), it should be a rather emotional issue, since whatever our President decides to do (in regards to Iraq) could substantially change the rest of our lives as human beings. Love, Doug
Re: a comment on 9/11 by dougsoderstrom	13-Sep-02/12:35 PM
Well limness: You still do not get it---do you? You say that my poem represents the fact that I am apparently some kind of reactionary. By saying that do you mean to imply that I am somewhat conservative? Well, if so, you totally missed the point of my poem. In fact, I am a Christian Humanist----meaning that I am basically a political liberal (in fact I am very liberal) yet I believe in the ethics of Jesus Christ----in that if one is to be "a Christian" it is very important to want to be as (live as) much like Jesus Christ (or even Buddha or Muhammed, or Khrisna) as one can----even if one is a Moslem, a Hindu, a buddhist, a Jew, or whatever else one might be. As for the poem (given my political and spiritual leanings), I am very much against the idea of George Bush wanting to go and invade Iraq. As I indicate in my poem (the last line, that is), I do not think that we need "more mangled bodies lying on the ground." And that could well be the result of a war with Iraq, especially if the war were to expand to the rest of the Middle East. So limness-----do I now make things a little clearer for you in terms who I am (that is the political and spiritual orientation that I have)??? Your Friend, Doug