Letters to Daniel

 Letters to Daniel

Number One

Daniel

So good to hear from you! I hope all is well with you and yours. We've been dying from the ridiculous heat lately, but we seem to be getting a break the last couple of days with some good much-needed rain cooling things down a little bit.

Well, whoa..."different kinds of information"...there's a topic that deserves contemplation and I have thought about it for awhile since receiving your letter, in hopes that I might contribute to the discussion without coming off as a fool. Which may well prove to be the case anyway. There is a distinct possibility that I might unknowingly veer off, without even realizing it, into territory that has little if anything to do with the topic at hand. You are intellectually so far above me that I almost fear insulting your intelligence, and I don't mean for that to come off as false humility. It's just the truth. So with that in mind, I'll try to express my thoughts in words and hopefully will not wind up looking like a fool in the end.

Are there other kinds of communication other than the direct type? Are you talking about whether there actually are other methods of communication or whether anything can actually be communicated through symbol, metaphor et. al. ? Or perhaps the two propositions are linked so closely that differences are too insignificant to take into account? I don't know, so my thoughts will likely vacillate between the two "poles".

I don't know that actual objects can be communicated by indirect communication. There's no need for a symbol to communicate the reality of, say, a fork. It's just there. You eat with it, you poke people with it, you use it to pry the lid off of stingy cans of paint.

But what about recognized concepts such as colors and shapes and things of that sort? Take for example your example of the box of crayons. Yes, that one is green. That other one is red. Just about the most direct and simple means of communication you could think of. But it wasn't always that way. There was a time, who knows when, millions of years ago for all I know, when there was no categorization of "colors", obviously no names for them. But one day a man decided that they needed names, they should be differentiated because there were so many. So, from somewhere, who knows where, God or the turtle in the stream he was sitting by, he uttered the word "green" (it's primitive equivalent of course...maybe he didn't even think of it as a word), and decided that was what he would call the leaves on a tree. That would be the symbol for the hues of frog and grass and lizard as opposed to the hues of the cardinal, the strawberry and blood, which he designated as "red", on and on and so on until all the colors he was aware of had names (a lot like the metaphor of Adam naming the all of the animals). We take for granted (and why shouldn't we?) that the names for the colors are themselves symbols for each individual color, given to them at some point in the long distant past.

Assuming that human beings apparently had no need to categorize colors before the initial naming, one has to wonder not so much WHEN this singularity occured, but WHY. And WHERE did the word itself come from? He could have called yellow "Crunk" or green "Kind" Take into account that I'm not talking about "literal" names, which obviously evolved throughout the years. I'm on about the very first uttering of classification, the reason (if any?) that a certain color was given a certain name. Maybe it's a stretch, but I truly believe that those particular words were given via indirect communication. They had to have been since there was no one there to describe them by direct communication (seeing as how there was nothing at the time to communicate). I think those words/utterances/classifying terms are the product of inspiration, and I believe that all inspiration is of God, that it's a reminder that He hasn't gone anywhere and still loves us enough to give us a glimpse of His glory.

I'm a big believer in inspiration. There's no way in hell anyone is going to convince me that Barber's "Adagio for Strings" is the product of Samuel Barber's talent, intellect, compositional ability. The Adagio moves me so deep in my soul that I can only conclude that it's the work of a higher power with the ability to stir up and evoke emotions that the original composer may well never have experienced. Music that makes a grown man cry is not the result of even the most gifted composer. Or perhaps I mean to say there is a quality to the music that is conveyed despite any shortcomings or strengths of the composer. Folks say "I like it because it speaks to me", and I think that's a lot closer to the literal truth than a lot of people even realize.

I guess I do think that there are indirect means of communication. I don't know how anyone can listen to really hardcore death metal without getting angry. If you listen to it for a while you notice that it actually nurtures that anger until it becomes almost a rage. So it would appear that this kind of music indirectly communicates the emotion of anger. That's an abstract concept, I know, so maybe it's not a valid example for the conversation at hand. But I have to wonder, what is it about that music that affects people in such a negative way? Is it the growling, gutteral singing? The "Satan Piss On My Grave" lyrics? The disorienting speed of the thrashing guitars? A combination of the lot? From where does it's power to aggrevate come? Why doesn't Perry Como illicit the same reaction? Some might chastise me for suggesting this, but I maintain that it is still inspiration, and moreover I believe it comes from the same place as Beethoven's 9th, "My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys" and "Macho Man". I say it's from God, and I say it because I don't believe God is a one dimensional self help guru for the "righteous" to cling to at the expense of every other aspect of His creation. If joy is from God, then anger must also be from God. Obviously it's a beneficial thing to nurture joy. But whose to say it isn't just as beneficial for some people of perhaps a different disposition to nurture righteous anger. Sometimes I think people may not even realize how "righteous" their anger may be...I mean, if I've been abused as a child there is gonna be some serious anger lodged within me, and if rocking out to some ridiculous metal band gives a temporary catharsis, then why not, as long as I can keep it in check...most people can, I think, but I could well be wrong about all of this). The important thing is that inspiration communicates a plethora of emotions, it fuels countless dreams, it kick starts will and accelerates ambition. And it's an indirect form of communication.

Am I still on the same page? I'm pretty sure I'm babbling on about nothing that has anything to do with what you were wanting to discuss. I see I've been on more about "communication" than "information".

When you say that christians literally make up "the corporeal body of God" do you mean that in the esoteric sense in which all things make up the "body" of the All? That word "body" throws me. I can't help but see it as symbolic, especially in light of Paul's admonition that each part has it's own role in the grand scheme, that a person should not be resentful or angry because he isn't equipped to perform the functions (ministry?) that someone else is blessed with. We're the body of Christ insomuch as we are to carry out the ministry of Jesus as he would if he were still on earth. We are his arms and legs to go and do, we are to display the compassion and feed the poor, help the needy as he would have done were he still physically among us. I'm sure you know that, I feel like a doofus writing it as if I were telling someone something they weren't already aware of. But as I think of it, I'm not even sure that "the body of Christ" is a metaphor or symbol at all. I mean, when you take into account those verses I just mention, it seems much more like an example, or better, just another way of looking at something that should have been obvious to the people who were gung ho to do anything and everything they could to perform the duties required to spread the gospel. No doubt that entailed a lot of different things, so telling them that they were like the body of Christ on earth, with the examples, was just a way to explain their respective roles and to let them know that one aspect of "ministry" was no less or no more important than perhaps a less "glamorous" one, if you will.

Then, over the years, it gets put under the microscope and people come to their own conclusions as to what it means NOW. Like, maybe you want to explain away the issue of various church denominations. You could take that "body of Christ" concept and apply it to that in such a manner that it seems acceptable that we have so many different kinds of variations on the same belief system. Personally I think that is okay, because it does make sense to me. I'm a big believer in continual revelation based upon my best understandings of the bible combined with informed reason making allowances for the progress of civilization. I mean, what kind of person in their right mind would say it was not morally correct to let a woman pastor a church or even get up and speak at all? Yeah, I know there are still some left, poor souls. Paul said it, right? It's in the bible, so that's that. But what's NOT mentioned in the bible is that the reason Paul made that proclomation was because women (most women?) were not well educated, they were basically one step up from being slaves in regards to their position within society, it would have been a scandal, much more trouble than it was worth at the time. Of course times have changed, long long time ago when it comes to women gaining their rightful place in society. Women, I'm sure, are much smarter than men anymore. I'm convinced that Paul would have rolled with the changes had he seen the direction things were going. Doesn't make the bible "wrong". Maybe that is there to encourage common sense and reason? Ha! To seperate the blind herd who would take all things literally (which runs counter to normal human behavior, IMO) from the people who will question and make an attempt to find out WHY it says what it does and if it still applies BASED UPON THE WHOLE OF THE BIBLE'S MESSAGE. Maybe that's the key. MESSAGE. Not to take away from the "medium", but I can't accept something that doesn't make sense as a whole. Meaning to say that I believe the bible presents the most "logical" (?) answer to the problem of "good" and "evil" and other essential philosophical questions.

But I don't want this response to come off as a weak apologetic...just couldn't help throwing that in to kind of offer perspective of where I'm coming from. Is hell a literal "place"? I remember about 20 or so years ago reading in a newspaper that the pope had declared that hell wasn't a "destination" so much as a "situation". It was the state of being completely cut off from God. Which all boiled down to the complete cessation of existence. Jesus parable of Lazuras and the rich man might need to be re-examined, but as a parable it is open to all manner of interpretation. It's a condition that people would do well to avoid, I think it's a condition that most people would not want to "experience", but it's perfectly fine if someone doesn't want to believe in the alternative and aren't open to the possibility of eternal life with a God they don't believe in. They don't have any reason to be "afraid" of "hell"/"the grave" etc. It's a release from all personal identity, and isn't that what the Buddhists shoot for? I personally wouldn't have any problem with merging back into nothingness. But I'm hard-wired to believe in God. Despite all the bullshit I see in certain corners of Christendom, I always gravitate back to Jesus Christ for the reason I stated earlier. The atonement, as difficult/impossible it is to truly comprehend, is the crux of the answer I've accepted to the question of good, evil, sin, salvation as I see it. I want to know about things I never knew in this life, and I think that's part of heaven. I want to experience things I never experienced in this life, and I think that's another part of heaven. And even if heaven, as some people say, is nothing more than worshiping at the feet of the Lord, I believe that just as I'm hard-wired to believe in good, knowing with certainty will completely "re-wire" my spiritual senses to the point where that will not only be enough to satisfy, it will be much more than enough. But who knows? The same bible that tells me who I am, why I am the way I am and how I got here also talks about heaven as if it is a beautiful reward, a return to innocence...

Now that I've strayed so far off topic I'd like to tell you about something I don't think I've ever told anyone before. Maybe Dustin, and who knows but that I might have told you as well but I don't remember. Anyway, I think the gist of it will help offer some insight into what I believe....

It was in the summer 2006. I'd begun to have delusions of grandeur...for one thing I thought I had cracked some kind of code that associated Freud's id, ego & superego with the Trinity and their various functions in the make up of psychology. I ramble on about it all the way to OCCIC, if you get my drift. (haha). So I'm spending a few days there, in what is basically a holding area to facilitate the transfer into Griffin (you remember good ol' Griffin?). I believed I was being called by God because of all the revelations I'd been receiving in my manic state. There were 3 or 4 administrators I had to sign documents for. From one office to the other I asked them, "Are you a Christian?" All of them said yes, they were. Then, get this, I asked them what denomination they belonged to! One said he was Catholic and I was, like, "that's great! I hold the Catholic faith in very high regard!" Then likewise to the next guy, who said he was a Methodist. Once again, I was like "Wow! That's great! I went to a Methodist church for a long time". So you can see that I was a bit too obsessed with religion at the time...a manic state is not the best time to turn into a Jesus Freak. I know this is crazy (after all, I was about 24 hours away from spending 3 weeks in a mental hospital), but at one point I believed I was channeling biblical figures, from Paul to Daniel to the Big Guy himself. I became ecstatic at one point because I believed I had determined the exact date of the end of the world by ciphering the number of the beast (no worries, it was millions of years from now).

So this silliness went on for a couple of days and then I had a psychotic episode. Something I've learned about these things is that you develop a sort of amnesia around certain actions and words. You can remember the poles, the stuff that happened when it started, and the stuff that happened as it descends but what goes in at the peak gets completely forgotten, someone will tell you what you did and you think they're lying or making it up because not only don't you believe them, it's stuff you know you would never do. In this case I was told that I became extremely angry, I think because I felt a curfew was not fair, and I went to the nurses station completely naked and let all my aggressions fly. I'd love to see the security camera footage of that! Anyway, next thing you know I'm being forcibly escorted to the isolation room. There were a lot of people hoisting me away, including one of OKC's finest with firearm in full view, so I was probably pretty rowdy.

That's when I got scared. And when I say "scared", I mean "shit in your pants" scared (though I did not do that). I don't scare easily as a rule, but I was terrified. As they pushed me through the door into a room that had a weird glow in the lights, and with the claustrophobic aspect of it, I "realized" why I was so frightened. I believed, with every bit as much certainty as I can see the words I'm typing right now, that a nuclear bomb had been fired by some enemy country and that it was going to land right on top of the building. If you can imagine that. I was going to die. Within moments. I knew it just like I knew it when I had my roll-over car wreck in 95. You know how scared I was? Just a couple of days ago I picked up a book about 9/11 and looked at the pictures. I came to one that showed people on the upper floors standing at the windows, some even on the ledges, knowing it was fall or fire. A wave of empathy and fear hit me like a splash of water. It's so odd for me to use the word "empathy" as I could never, in my wildest nightmares, be able to describe what it must have felt like for them. But it shook me, because seriously, I do know what it's like to think you are going to die. No, I don't mean "think"...I mean "KNOW". The doctors had to come in and shoot me up with a sedative or no doubt I would have kicked it from an adrenalin overdrive before Enola Gay had a chance to reach us. I cried and screamed "I repent! I repent!" until I conked out from the haldol or whatever it was.

I slept for a couple of days straight. After I woke up and had a chance to collect my thoughts I began to think about "where I was" during those 2 days I slept. I wasn't dead so it couldn't have been heaven or hell, right? But I thought, if this was all there was when I died, which would be a dictionary definition of the atheist point of view, then I would be fine with that. But as days and weeks and months passed by I realized I wanted more, that there had to be more. Or maybe not "more", but SOMETHING. Maybe it was down to a choice between "something" and "nothing" on the most grand scale, perhaps that's the difference between heaven and hell, I don't know?

I guess that means that we are at odds with the "literal" and "symbolic" descriptions of hell. Why would the Bible use such graphic language to describe "nothing"? I am tempted to think that it's because the majority of people in the world, today but especially in those days, have no real concept of what "nothing" is, at least in that particular philosophical manner. And people are so attached with their personal identity that the prospect of losing it completely is terrifying, even if it's only on a subconscious level. Even as terrifying as an eternity spent in hell fire. I may be right, I may be wrong on this. But if you think about it, whether I'm right or wrong doesn't mean a damn thing, you know? If it helps me, personally, process mysteries then it has value. A merciful God may or may not send someone to a literal hell. I can't comprehend the kind of mercy that would make that okay. But I do absolutely believe that God is a just judge and that whatever "punishment" He might mete out would be absolutely and irrefutably fair. To me, the kind of non-existence I went through would be the best way I can reconcile the consignment of sinners to hell. It's merciful. In many ways it is extreme. It would not be the preferred choice of the vast majority of mankind. And it satisfies the demands of any reasonable person seeking righteous revenge (bin Laden is NO MORE. That should be enough). Certainly not meaning to put atheists and such in the same category as Osama bin Laden. But you get what you want or you get what you deserve, not in the dogma of Christians who say "If you have Jesus in your heart then you are going to heaven, vice versa, and that's that", but in the eyes of God.

I think a lot of Christians need to expand their understanding of what a "parable" is. Jesus spoke in parables. It doesn't say "Jesus spoke SOME parables". I could be wrong, but doesn't the bible say Jesus TAUGHT in parables? That would mean that all of his teachings, from the Sermon on the Mount to the ones he taught to the 3000 he fed, can be interpreted as if by parables, or in symbolism, hyperbole, etc. Why? What's the point? Why not, you ask, just come right out and say it? I sure can't answer that. In the gospel of Luke, Jesus tells the apostles, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, "'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'" (Luke 8:10 NIV). Can't say I have a grasp of what He meant by that. But there's probably an answer within it and it's context within the rest of Scripture.

Well, this has gone on probably a lot longer than you expected, and I'm sure the original topic has only been touched upon, sacrificed to my rambling. I was probably writing more to myself than to you. Thanks for giving me the chance to pick my brain. Look forward to hearing more from you.

JAC

Addendum July 19, 2026...Jesus saves! Heaven is real! It will be better than I envisioned it in the state I was in when I wrote this letter to my old friend Daniel Baldwin Newman.

()()()()()()

Number Two

I'm sorry it has taken so long to reply, and even this perhaps not a proper response, but I'll try to touch on some of your points.

I would have to disagree with you about religion being one and the same as it's adherents. From here on in this message I will equate "religion" with "Christianity" because, though I do have some knowledge of other belief systems' worldviews, obviously I am coming from a Christian perspective. I don't speak for the "community" of Catholics or the "community" of Baptists or so forth and so on. I can only speak from "Christianity" as I have known and believed it...and who knows but that I may be the only one to see it in such a manner, but I do believe it's based on biblical principles with an acknowledgement that my spirituality is a "work in progress" and that revelation did not end with the last stroke of the bible's authors pen.

With that said, I have no problem distancing myself from a huge portion, perhaps the majority, of "Christians" in this country. I stand by every minority that has ever been attacked by fundamentalists. I won't even excuse the "non-fundamentalists", because so many have their own less obvious yet just as insidious forms of intolerance. You mention the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin". And it almost always gets tossed out when in reference to homosexuality. The phrase is a judgment, that's obvious. But the problem is that it seems to be mainly used by straight Christians as some perverted way to cloak deep rooted homophobia while coming off as "accepting" to others, even in the church, who may not see things that way. It's a judgment, but it's fucked up because when all is said and done only Jesus can live up to the standard of loving the sinner and hating the sin. I mean, you can hold it up as a standard, as a goal to shoot for, but you're not gonna love all sinners and so you might as well not pretend you can truly "love" any. You can fool yourself into thinking you hate sin, but if you were able to somehow count every sin you commit during the course of even a single day you would have to revise the "hate the sin" bit, because you surely don't totally hate something that you willingly or unconsciously do all the time. So if "love the sinner hate the sin" is really a judgment, and I believe it is used in that manner most of the time, then it applies every bit as much to the one using it against another. Using it adds one more sin to your bill.

I don't go to church. I believe I am part of the church. Maybe a pinkie toe in the body of Christ, but important, nay, essential nonetheless. And I am not sure that there is a need for hiearchial systems in individual congregations. I don't know, maybe there is...I mean, I'm looking at it from one point of view, you look at it from another point of view that, at least on this point I think we agree upon, but as for the vast majority of people in the country, I think they might NEED such leadership...I mean, they're the ones who are in control of it, regardless, so no doubt the leadership is just a figurehead, but so many people need/want to be told they're in line, they're doing fine, what they need to do, because they are truly clueless as to what that may be. The bible is a deep, deep book, and I doubt there are 1 of 10 in every congregation in every denomination who has read it through or studied it thoroughly or maybe even ever get it out except on Sundays so they can wear it like a badge to a service in which a preacher will give them a tiny, infinitesimal glimpse of what's between the covers...all of which they will forget when they smell the pleasing aromas of pizza offered at the Ken's Pizza Sunday afternoon all-you-can-eat buffet.

But the point is, most people who look for guidance or advice in all things spiritual don't look to the bible or even to God in prayer, they go to their pastor, minister, priest, what have you. Not to ostracize all "men of the cloth", but they all know who pays their bills, who keeps them well fed and clothed. It's not hard to imagine a minister who is more than willing to validate points of view that may be founded on misreadings of key points in Scripture. Does that make sense? I mean, I don't know if something like that happens often, but the proliferation of "love the sinner hate the sin" would suggest that someone in power is not willing to "lay down the law" in a manner of speaking.

And so, homophobic tendencies are allowed to fester even though the fact of the matter is that NO ONE is judged in a lesser or greater degree for their sexual preference. Jesus put the mojo on straight heterosexuals in the sermon on the mount: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

The point being that NO ONE, based on ANYTHING, is free from sin. A few verses later He says, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." And I think a lot of people get this statement wrong. Maybe *I'M* the one who is wrong, but I see zealous Christians who think "Be perfect" is a target goal that, alas there's no way to achieve it, yet is still demanded by their peers in the church. And I guess that is a lofty ambition, but it's futile. All throughout this sermon Jesus is dispelling outdated mindsets and traditions. And He wraps it all up with what may perhaps be a key to the mysteries of salvation..."You're not perfect. There's no way in hell you will EVER be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect. Haven't you heard what I said only 5 minutes ago? It's too late for perfection. You never had a chance..."

All of which sounds kind of nihilistic. But it's the message of the bible, I'm not telling you anything you don't know, eh? I really don't want to come off as proselytizing, so my apologies if I have.

But, moving on...I do acknowledge that far too many wars have been waged in the name of religion. I only suggest that they are waged IN THE NAME of religion and are not condoned by THE ESSENCE of religion. I could be wrong, but Al Queda could wage a war they would call a jihad, even though the majority of Muslims may very well condemn them for their actions, so is it the "religion" that they fight for, or their own messed up interpretations of the religion? Yet they still call it jihad. I just get pissed off when I hear atheists, whenever they mention war at all, toss off every "religious" war ever waged and point the finger at God for letting it happen. They bash religion and worship science all the while ignoring the fact that the single greatest destructive force ever used in the pursuit of justice is the atomic bomb, a masterwork of the scientist's craft. We live in constant fear, and have done, for over 50 years of the devestating power unleashed by Truman and Einstein, with no religious ties whatsoever. (edit: I realize that Truman was not the president when the bomb was dropped, I was just making an elusion to the Jim Carrey film The Truman Show). What I'm trying to say here is that no matter how much atheists (and hopefully people in general) may be appalled at "religious wars", the fact of the matter is that the possibility of a war backed by science is even more distressing. I hate to talk in terms of "better" or "worse" about these things, but I only try to make a point.

Well, I must go...maybe I'll get a chance soon to take up where I left off. I would like to say, though, in response to the last paragraph of your message...I could never align myself with any group of people whose ignorance, intolerance and hatred are mixed in equal degrees and hurled at people and ideas they don't understand. It's sad, to me, that so many of the intolerant people use their Christianity, their perverted understanding of Christainity, as some kind of warped justification for their actions. And so, I am actually leary of even calling myself a "Christian". Priests molesting young boys, televangelists fleecing the flock, politicians waving bibles on their soapboxes, the radical element protesting funerals, and they all call themselves "Christians". It is certainly not for me to say whether they are or not. The true essence of Christianity, as I see it, is GRACE, so who knows how God is using these things for the future good of mankind? I only know that He IS. It's impossible for me to know even how my own actions will affect the fabric of space and time in the long run, but I do honestly believe that, in some manner big or small, they WILL. Likewise all of the bad shit in the world will one day be turned to good, even if there's no way we could or would want to see it in the here and now. And we won't know. It may be a million years from now. It may be forgotten by everyone who witnessed it, and yet in some manner it will have become manifest in an essentially beneficial way.

I personally think the "war" against the LGBT community is reprehensible. It's based on judgment and not Grace, and that's how I know it's wrong. It's not a matter of anyone "forgiving" anyone. There's nothing to "forgive". It's about acceptance and unconditional love. On both sides. I say that, even knowing that the LGBT community *have* for the most part, offered those conditions while Conservative right wing religious fanatics have not..

You know I'm not a homophobe. I haven't been since 1989 when I had you on "speakerphone"...HAHAHA! Do you remember that? All it took to break down my uninformed opinions of homosexuality was to hear a close friend tell me he was gay. I wasn't concerned with those things before you told me, and that's probably why it was such a shock when you did. But I didn't care because it made no difference, it just didn't factor into the reasons I held you in such high esteem. And I did respect your path. As I do now. Mainly just wanted to say that I hope you can exempt me from any of the generalizations that many people use in defining "Christians"...