May I let my voice be a clarion call. I will use these words for justice. I will use these words for truth. And humour.

Sunday, March 26, 2006


My Sweetie is the greatest!

music: Les Paul and Mary Ford

colors: gray with rainbows

mood: cathartic

i cried yesterday for the first time in about a year. i was laying in bed with a whole bunch of chest pain, mostly as a result of doing some preliminary work toward the ustrasana yoga pose which must've opened up some longstanding scar tissue, and also compounded by going out to eat with some friends, where this malt shop served up a huge sandwich, followed by a huge brownie sundae which we split, neither of which we even finished, but i was too full and felt like puking even.

we talked while i was laying in bed, about some of the ongoing stressors in my life related to making ministerial plans, and the state of affairs in the world, and i just started sobbing it up. she has a way of really understanding, and listening. it felt so good to let it out and also to have her hear me the way she did. she really is the greatest.

no more cold compassion.

pax hominibus,

"And so, Theodore Donald Karabotsos, in accordance with what we think your dying wishes might well have been, we commit your final mortal remains to the bosom of the Pacific Ocean"

Saturday, March 25, 2006


Important piece about Alfred North Whitehead on Vector Analysis of Process Theology & Metaphysics

music: Crystal Method, Tweekend

colors: plum red

mood: samadhic

thoughts: i'm at the library at a public terminal, where they won't allow me to get onto my web-based email so leaving myself this link.


pax hominibus (always),

"And so, Theodore Donald Karabotsos, in accordance with what we think your dying wishes might well have been, we commit your final mortal remains to the bosom of the Pacific Ocean"

Thursday, March 23, 2006


Watching TV with the M.I.L. (mother-in-law)

young and the restless again...

individually wrapped prunes why nick, why did you make all those calls to phyllis? where were you? i was with phyllis. i hope it wasn't too uncomortable for you. i knew he's angry with you but i wish he would've called. i'm sure there was nothing you could do they're determined to be away from you as far away as possible. he said you were a liar, what's that about? the good news is she's not using her credit card and you froze her bank account. unless daniel has his own cash... i've gotta give you a copy of this. willy was on line last night... (blah blah blah, I gotta go walk the dog, will continue when the commercials come on, since they're the most outrageous part of TV...)

aunt jemima homemade pancakes. new purex whiter whites brighter colors. a surprising value. who got revenge cold case. i'm tired of talking to you i've been in both of your bathrooms. that is a really great bra what kind is it? i don't wear any bra. you make it really hard to be nice to you. great to see you again. you too. funky chips ahoy oi oi oi. not puniky, chunky. oi oi oi.

OK I have to go to class. All love to you who read this.

pax hominibus,

"And so, Theodore Donald Karabotsos, in accordance with what we think your dying wishes might well have been, we commit your final mortal remains to the bosom of the Pacific Ocean"

Wednesday, March 15, 2006


What Impedes us from Immanentizing the Eschaton?

music: Younger Brother, a Flock of Seagulls

colors: yellow, almond

mood: scattered

thoughts: the other day i was working in the library and found a yellow post-it note with handwriting that said something to the tune of "utopianism: the false belief in trying to achieve heaven on earth in our time," which made me nervous. i mean somebody at my school actually writing that with their own hand. gah!

So i went home and was doing homework for my theo class, and looked up utopianism on the web, and found this commentary by a man named jonah goldberg, in which he uses the phrase "The attempt to bring such utopianism to the here and now is the sin of trying to immanentize the eschaton." If you look up the two ten-dollar words in that sentence, you may come to the same conclusion as me -- that he's of a school of thought, shared by many Christian conservatives, and implies that humanocentric christian universalism is sinful by nature, for trying to make the world better. Um, excuse me? Here are Christians who are at once so very hopeful that Christ will return, and then the rapture, etc, and at the same time call any effort to make the realization of that reality sinful. The eschaton essentially means the end of an age, and the beginning of a new one, and I can see how that could be quite frightening for some, especially those who feel they have a lot to lose and don't understand all that they have to gain.

[Appropriate Tool lyrics: "I can't imagine why you wouldn't welcome any change, my friend."]

Today in class, we discussed God, Sin and Evil, and the need to define them from a more beneficial perspective than the one associated with the Catholic guilt feedback loop. Some definitions:
God: a deity who suffers with us, and celebrates with us.
Sin: That which damages. Or missing the mark.
Evil: Continuing to miss the mark. Or acting without concern for consequences.

One nice thing a classmate said -- "our problem is that we avoid the power we do have and seek out the power that we don't have. also we focus on the immediate right now, and on the far distant future, but not on that essential and long stretch between."

Oh, here's a valuable link.

The charge for the day -- assiduous determination.

pax hominibus,

"And so, Theodore Donald Karabotsos, in accordance with what we think your dying wishes might well have been, we commit your final mortal remains to the bosom of the Pacific Ocean"


Today's Theology Paper

Concepts of God Affect Justice

God gave us reason so that we could determine the nature and place of God in our world. Even that statement makes an initial assumption that places God at the origin of our ability to reason, and places us in a position of subservience to the very being of whom we need to ascertain the truth – a seeming conflict of interest.

I've long had a belief that what one believe affects how one acts, and when summed across sentient humanity, affects the state of the world. With that in mind, I am of the mindset that one needs to first, as openly and impartially as possible, consider their values about how the world should be, recognize the actions that are required on their part to help make it that way, and finally identify the beliefs that will effectively persuade one's actions. A people's definition of God, and how God handles (or doesn't handle) affairs in the world is therefore critical to real-world outcomes.

This belief in the context of “The Postmodern Debate,” by Michael J. Scanlon, regarding the need for attentiveness to others' perspectives, as brought to mind a concept for which I'm not sure a compact verbiage yet exists – namely the notion of being able to consolidate two or more models of reasoning or perspectives into one larger set. Viewed in combination, one can then view them critically in order to perform a comparative analysis and search for identical concepts expressed in different terms, for places where the topology of thought differs significantly, and for perspectives that one may offer when the another may not acknowledge it at all.

The term I want to use for holding multiple perspectives or models into one combined model cluster is multithetical unity. Similarly, the term I'd put forward when two models express the same thing differently, or are actually different sides of the same coin, so to speak, is multithetical identity. While the use of these terms may cause the thinker to synthesize new insights, and therefore understand a hybrid (or entirely novel) model of theology, they consider the models as sufficiently partitioned, in order to retain their original meaning and context, and are not intended to cause any theological model to change form, become blended or watered down.

From Scanlon, it appears that models or cultures can have different underlying assumptions, definitions, and structures, and blending two or more can be like mixing oil and water. While deconstructing and reconstructing the elements presented, listeners may hear words from an unfamiliar model and apply it erroneously from their previous frame of reference – one which may lead to either major misunderstandings, or as learning occurs and the two models interact, perhaps new understandings. Thinkers from two different models can only communicate rationally if they agree on terms, and understand the hermeneutics required to translate across cultures. This process of agreement requires a statement of assumptions from each party, followed by negotiations to step into the larger arena of thought contained within the cluster of multithetical unity, and to see where multithetical identities exist. At this point, the thinkers may see their thought processes within the multithetical unity as being loosely expressible in a Venn diagram.

Moving on, one can suggest that a discussion of the conception of the divine, and its actions upon the world, would do well to be considered within the context of multithetical unity. There are so many models to choose from, such that including every conception of the divine and negotiating between them all could take many lifetimes, so it may be best to consider only a handful of models at a time.

I would like to briefly compare the models presented by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, William R. Jones, and an American religious-right narrow definition of family. In Gilman's “His Religion and Hers,” she portrays a compelling array of benefits of viewing God in terms of motherhood, and presents the male-focused God's inability to see life in terms of birth, but rather in terms of death. Considering the interests of yin/yang, and the “one-man, one-woman” view of family multithetically, it becomes apparent that there may be good reason to have more than one God (or at least more than one way of conceiving of God for) bringing up the human race. In the same sense that having a masculine and feminine figure available during the formative years of a child, during these ongoing formative years in the history of the human race, having a conception of God who is able to offer two perspectives to choose from will help us be more reasoning, selective, and provide a wider breadth of understanding.

In Jones' presentation of humanocentric theism and secular humanism, he shows us a model in which the figurative parent or parents have passed on. In this conception, without a God or with a God who only calls from a distance, the former child of God is now grown up, the eldest in the family, and much maturity is required. It is possible that many secular humanists, atheists, and entirely non-religious people choose what they do because their concept of the Christian God is of a parent who is irrational, arbitrary, capricious and judgmental. To the child who has figuratively run from an abusive relationship or grew up an orphan, or been treated poorly by their siblings at the urging of their father, God has no leverage in the arena of justice or non-justice.



Scanlon, Michael J., O.S.A., “The Postmodern Debate,” The Twentieth Century: A Theological Overview, Ed. Gregory Baum, Marynoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999

Gilman, Charlotte Perkins, His Religion and Hers: A Study of the Faith of our Fathers and the Work of Our Mothers, Connecticut: Hyperion Press Inc, 1976 (originally published 1923)

Jones, William R., Is God a White Racist? A Preamble to Black Theology, Boston: Beacon Press, 1973, 1998

Scanlon also mentions Jacques Derrida.


Hope you enjoyed.

pax hominibus,

"And so, Theodore Donald Karabotsos, in accordance with what we think your dying wishes might well have been, we commit your final mortal remains to the bosom of the Pacific Ocean"

Tuesday, March 14, 2006


Welcome to Oakland!

music: johnny cash, i walk the line

colors: oil slick black

mood: sour

thoughts: so it was raining today and steph had a thirty pound bag of books and stuff with her so i drove downtown to the bart stop to pick her up. as i drove up, she was waiting at the bus stop. i pulled up, she got in, and we were ready to go within about 10-12 seconds. I wasn't parking or even standing, but had stopped for only ten seconds as my wife was getting in and was about to drive off when I got slammed with a 'Welcome to Oakland' ticket by an officer who was, barring an incredible coincidence, fishing for $250, instead of stopping rapists and muggers.

And of course the situation was further complicated because we haven't still resolved the issue with the DMV and my wife's late ex-husband. He was asking for proof of insurance cards and calling in the Vehicle ID Number, and all that.... One tiny saving grace is that just maybe the Oakland police are equal opportunity and don't racially profile (as much) for DWB. Perhaps that's just wishful thinking though.

I guess somebody's gotta be the sucker that helps pay for our bus system, but it sure feels like crap to realize that you just spent $17/second. I guess the letter of the law rules the day here.

Sad, because I had stopped by the guitar store briefly after class today to look at lefty guitars, and found one I liked well enough for far less than that, but knew we really didn't have the money for it. C'est la vie, I suppose.

One more strike against using cars around here. Did I mention we were planning on selling it? Then of course, I'd have to carry a thirty pound bag a mile and risk further scoliosis.

On the bright side, I really did enjoy playing the left handed guitar, with both right and left hand, and realized that it feels incredibly more natural to bend the skinny strings up away from the body than toward it. Perhaps this cop's message was that I should stick to the basics.

pax hominibus,

"And so, Theodore Donald Karabotsos, in accordance with what we think your dying wishes might well have been, we commit your final mortal remains to the bosom of the Pacific Ocean"

Wednesday, March 8, 2006


Good ol' Isaiah 3:16-24

I'm supposed to be studying, but came across this instead:

Moreover Yahweh said, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with outstretched necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet; therefore the Lord will strike with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and Yahweh will lay bare their secret parts.

The Lord will take away the beauty of their anklets, and the headbands, and the crescents; the pendants, and the bracelets, and the mufflers; the headdresses, and the ankle chains, and the sashes, and the perfume-boxes, and the amulets; the rings, and the nose-jewels; the festival robes, and the mantles, and the shawls, and the satchels; the hand-mirrors, and the fine linen, and the turbans, and the veils.

It shall happen that instead of sweet spices there shall be rottenness; and instead of a belt, a rope; and instead of well set hair, baldness; and instead of a robe, a girding of sackcloth; branding instead of beauty.

Note that there are no quotation marks on what the lord Yahweh said. Does God use the third person when referring to God? In order to not, then Yahweh would only have said the part highlighted in blue above.

Don't get me wrong, the book of Isaiah has some truly valuable nuggets in it, but this is not one of them.

read, write, sleep.

pax hominibus,

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

free page hit counter