Thanks Andrius,

in your letter, the initial thought speaks of the degree to which my
project is growing upon you. You then proceed to say: "if I
understand correctly?". Yes, you do, considering the distance you
have to travel to accomodate my arrival on the scene, you are a
great air traffic controller. To futher you with my present course,
on Sat the May 14, 2005 I will meet with the MP I asked prayer for
in my last entry named: "Global focus of unity to ignite from
Canada". I aim to join with him and all who will join, to
raise a clear focus with a local user friendly handle upon the
global movement of history in the making, from our own personal and
national healing and on to the extremities of the world. Destiny is
history in God's hands. Adaptation to change is the only constant
of human life. The currency of history is the constant dynamics of
humanity's adaptation to the changes through space and time in
coping with survival. From the cause and effect history of human
instincts to survive, I now go straight to the Faculty of Living,
where God and humans meet to define the makings of history
together. I use this expression, Faculty of Living, at the core of
the human-divine-human science and experience of spiritual unity.
Faculty of Living is a formula to describe the embodyment of the
essence and of the substance in the experience of
spiritual, human living. The spiritual history of humanity is on a
quest for home, from home to home in order to learn to live better
and better.
From faith to faith, from glory to glory, from eternity to
eternity. By easing the Faculty of Living to emerge as the media-
community in Canada, we can serve humanity with the settling
catalist in civilization's present unsettling context. As always,
it can only be done with the simplicity that Jesus refers to when He
prays to say: "I thank you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that
you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed
them to the babes..." He speaks of that right after mentioning the
kind of human-divine experience that cannot be duplicated,
accomplished, learned nor attained by any of our independant
abilities and powers. Jesus follows by insisting that no one can
come to Him if the Father has not drawn that person to Him. Knowing
God is the "happening". God knows me and He makes me aware that He
is my Father. The bond from Him to me and my worshipping Him in
return is the whole happening, in the simplicity of all the
complexities that can ever befall me. In that bond of inner
transparency, there is no secret, only knowledge being unveiled from
seeking Him as He guides me in the growth, apprenticeship and
adaptation to all that eternal life needs, to travel in me and us
through time and space, here and now.
When we apeak of vision we speak of a scene being described from a
specific point of view. The apostles Paul says that "...God has
seated us together in Christ Jesus in the heavenly places..." From
here, in the faith wherefrom gets subtanciated the things that are
unseen, supported with the assurance of that which is hoped for.
there is only one point of view for us to experience the scene,
where together lives in action and in truth. The accomplishment of
the vision is a matter of faithfulness in the small things from each
one who sees, because when God is involved everything is small and
crucial.
In unity, be it between me with my wife and/or children and/or my
city, my province, my country, the world or the universe, one is
one. By learning to abide in Him within the boundaries of the
yoke's comfort around our neck, we learn to apply the saving
attributes of God's judgement, the cross, to our soul's self-
agitations. As the soul learns obediance, the Spirit renders life
to our mortal body, so that we may experience hosting Him in His
temple of each one's own intimacy, our body. The sanctity of
intimacy with God is all in all.
The unfolding of history in the making is where God handles all the
little things that are crucial to His Kingdom, and Canada is given a
choiced opportunity to deal with history in the making from local to
global, because of our apprenticeship to host the personal and
communal waves of local and global unity for the past 5 centuries.
The destiny of humanity's quest for home has the possibility to
assemble and to be presented and cultivated globally in the present
tense like never before. Miltary intelligence is pointing out that
survival instincts wont stand by much longer, enduring spiritual
divisions that pretend to be united, while misery and ignorance go
on ruling in the name of God, liberty and justice. At the end of
your letter you ask: "Benoit, does this relate to your quest?" Your
search and your finding of truth are all crucial to God and I
certainly relate to both. When it comes to expressing the findings
of the truth, there is such a long and confusing distance to go from
the experience its explaination, that this is why it is so important
in our days and age, to see the Faculty of Living to emerge in full
bloom. It is by the love that you have for one another that the
world will know that we are learners of the truth and grace, says
Jesus. When it comes to reading scriptures and the 9 different ways
to read and to misread, I aggree with you that the more we can sit
with others to host the Lord together in His writen word, the more
depth can be revealed and activated intimatly, all as one in truth
and grace. I look forward to witness the maturity of a people of all
people to rise up from the true state of worship in the human
spirit, with the peace of thanksgiving and in the joy of praise...
Have a blessed day Darius and
companions...Benoit



--- In lovingGod@yahoogroups.com, Andrius Kulikauskas <ms@m...>
wrote:
> Benoit,
>
> Each time that you write about your project, I think I understand
a
> little bit more. If I understand correctly, you find Canada
important
> as a nice country to serve as a "pilot project" for unity among
beliefs
> and the healing that might bring for individuals and society. I
think
> that's nice if various regions might play such roles. And it's
great to
> encourage leaders (and citizens) to think in those terms.
>
> I want to share some thoughts today that I had on "reading" and
> "misreading", especially with regard to Scriptures. In our
mailing
> lists we often feel overwhelmed by our letters, as Graham has been
> writing. We'd like people to write better. But instead, we might
learn
> to read better.
>
> For example, it takes time to realize that we don't have to read
all of
> our letters. Instead, we can think of this as a newspaper that we
> subscribe to - we don't have to read all the articles or respond
to all
> of them. And, with that in mind, it helps us all if we have more
> writing and less reading.
>
> As we seek unity, I think that it helps for us to look for - and
read
> for - the deeper meaning. Reading the Scriptures of our faiths -
either
> alone or in small groups - is an outstanding way to practice
reading,
> because it invites us engage an Author who might elevate us.
>
> However, we tend in so many ways to avoid reading the real meaning
and
> instead we make up our own. And we do this almost hypnotically as
a
> society. So today I listed out the ways that I think we misread -
avoid
> reading - and illustrate them with examples from the Scriptures of
my
> Christian faith. I came up with nine ways of misreading:
> - Judgmental Reading
> - Allegorical Reading
> - Distanced Reading
> - Aloof Reading
> - Righteous Reading
> - Emulative Reading
> - Convergent Reading
> - Presumptive Reading
> - Selective Reading
> I will look over these groupings and refine them I think later.
But
> each of them has to do with avoiding reading at "face value".
Which is
> to say, avoiding the literal reading.
Interestingly, "fundamentalists"
> are often as likely as the rest of us to not take things literally.
>
> How can there by any "one" meaning if there are all these ways of
going
> astray? I think that, in fact, the very definite way in which we
stray
> away is what helps us see that there is an alternate, deep meaning
that
> we are trying to avoid. So perhaps it really is possible to find
and
> agree on the real points of all these passages.
>
> I share my own thinking in the examples. Perhaps they will
encourage us
> to think that there may be "definite" meaning. Or perhaps they
will
> have us take the opposite view. Certainly there is much to
quibble with
> my thinking. But I'm concluding that, indeed, passages generally
have
> two meanings - one superficial and distracting, and one deep and
> refreshing - and that it is possible to note them, although not
easy.
> We all have a tendency to be pulled by the "easy" meaning and we
all are
> able to acknowledge the "deep" meaning.
>
> I am reading the Quran, encouraged by Emad El Deen El Akehal, and
look
> forward to applying this type of thinking for that Scripture as
well.
> But in what follows I focus on the Old and New Testaments of the
> Christian traditions. (http://www.ebible.org)
>
> Benoit, does this relate to your quest?
>
> Andrius
> http://www.ms.lt
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> I am a Christian. I feel that the Scriptures are, quite often,
> systematically misread and misinterpreted. How can that be? Is it
> possible to agree on what the Scriptures mean? I will try to
collect
> some examples here, and I invite our help. My hypothesis is that
we can
> agree on an absolute meaning if we consider it as indicated by the
> direction of the distortion that takes place. I invite our help -
please
> write your name so we know who you are and can engage you and your
thoughts.
> http://www.openleader.com/index.php/LovingGod/GospelProvocations
>
> -----------------------------------
> Judgemental Reading
> -----------------------------------
>
> Readers often approach the Scripture judgementally. If the
behavior of
> one is shown to be good, then they assume that the behavior of
another
> is bad.
>
> The Prodigal Son - Typically, the older son is judged badly by
readers,
> perhaps because the prodigal son is judged well. But isn't the
older son
> in the right? And frankly, isn't the older son a model of Jesus
and
> express the issues that he struggles with? such as his
relationship with
> his Father and his brothers?
>
> -----------------------------------
> Allegorical Reading
> -----------------------------------
>
> Communion - Christ says about the bread - This is my body, and
about the
> wine - This is my blood. This is taken allegorically or
mystically. But,
> frankly, isn't it true literally? The bread - as soon as Christ
eats it
> - is indeed his body. And the blood - as soon as Christ drinks it -
is
> indeed his blood. And in the sense that it is his bread and his
wine,
> then it already is. So when his disciples eat it - he gives it to
them
> instead of himself - then they are indeed literally eating his
flesh and
> drinking his blood - what would have been, and what actually is,
if it
> is true that it was his. So here the literal truth suggests an
> allegorical reading, but actually the literal truth is what gives
so
> much more vigor to the allegory, and shows the point - that if we
truly
> have something, then we can truly give it away, and it is always
ours -
> and this is our communion.
>
> Pluck your eye out - Jesus says to pluck your eye out if it causes
you
> to sin. Readers tend to say this is allegorical, and exaggerated.
> However, if it is read literally, and you are faced with the
matter of
> plucking your eye out, then you recognize the fine print: if it
causes
> you to sin. And at that point you accept that it was not your eye
that
> causes you to sin, but that you are rotten to the core. And isn't
that
> the much bigger point? And who will find that point unless they
read it
> literally (which is to say, unless they believe)?
>
> -----------------------------------
> Distanced Reading
> -----------------------------------
>
> When Jesus tells a story, then it lets people choose: either to
look at
> it from a distance, which is to say, keeping their distance from
it, or
> alternatively, to participate within it.
>
> Good Samaritan - Jesus tells this story in response to the
question, Who
> is my neighbor? regarding his statement Love your neighbor as
yourself.
> And then he asks, Who was the neighbor to the man who was beaten
up, was
> it the Good Samaritan? Everybody concludes that "love your
neighbor"
> means "love the man who was beaten up". But in fact, what Jesus
> literally says is "love your Good Samaritan". Yet, why is this
> consistently misread? I suppose because people don't want to
acknowledge
> others as helping them, and so they don't identify with that.
>
> -----------------------------------
> Aloof Reading
> -----------------------------------
>
> We often assume that the Gospel has only one audience - us.
However, it
> makes sense to think of the Gospel as speaking to all audiences,
and not
> necessarily the same thing in the same passage.
>
> The Reason for Parables - Jesus is asked by his disciples why he
speaks
> in parables when he is able to speak plainly and he says - so that
the
> people could not hear and could be damned. Well, this could is
typically
> understood as "would", which is one meaning (and shocking and then
> ignored). But another meaning is "could" as in have the choice. In
other
> words, by speaking in parables, he gives people the choice of
whether
> they want to accept them or not, but when people already believe,
he
> does not need to give them that choice, and so he can speak
plainly.
> This is a very sensible, informative, benevolent reading. So why
don't
> people read this passage that way? Perhaps because they don't
think of
> others, they only read a passage from their own point of view, and
> furthermore, as if theirs was the highest point of view, not
realizing
> that there may be higher points of view than their own, which may
help
> them grow.
>
> -----------------------------------
> Righteous Reading
> -----------------------------------
>
> Readers assume that the Author of the book presents his characters
as
> positive examples and that they express his views. Whereas the
views of
> somebody like Paul, or even Jesus, may be an illustration of how
Not to
> think or do, they may be negative examples.
>
> Paul's Trial in Jerusalem before the Sanhedrin - (from the Acts of
the
> Apostles) - Compare Paul's behavior with Jesus' behavior in very
similar
> circumstances - and Paul comes out much worse, with many flaws
showing.
> (Compare Jesus and Paul's responses: upon being struck. And Paul's
> pandering to the high priest. And his relying on his Roman
citizenship.
> And later, his appeal to Caesar. And note that he would have been
> released if he hadn't appealed to Caesar. And that he had reason
to
> think that the Holy Spirit did not want him to go, but he went
with his
> own gut instinct instead.) Paul's wish was to follow Christ's path
(and
> I suppose be crucified in Jerusalem) and yet he is humbled when he
is
> compared to Christ. Such a comparison, indeed, glorifies Christ.
From
> God's or Christ's point of view, isn't there a great deal of irony
here?
> Yet the reader sees Paul as heroic and identifies with him in a
> righteous way. The reader identifies more readily with Paul than
with
> Christ. The reader sees the heroism rather than the irony. Why?
>
> Jesus changes his mind - In John, Jesus tells his brothers that he
will
> not go up to the festival. But then he goes. The straightforward
reading
> is that he changed his mind. But the readers reject such a
reading. Why?
> Because the reader identified with Jesus, and being righteous, the
> reader doesn't want to change their mind.
>
> Jesus is lost - When Jesus was a child, he got separated from his
> parents and they finally found him in the temple. They asked him
why he
> was there and he said, in effect, Didn't you think of looking for
me
> here? The straightforward reading is that Jesus truly got lost and
he
> went where they might best find him, where they might most expect
him to
> be. And that after this episode he was obedient. Read in this way,
the
> passage illustrates a very deep concept - the logic of a lost
child and
> its relevance. But the readers do not consider that Jesus might
have
> gotten lost or not have been obedient to his parents.
>
> The Book of Job - It seems clear enough: God wrongs Job in the
worst
> way, at the hands of Satan, then Job is berated by his "friends".
Job
> accepts his suffering, but challenges God to show himself face-to-
face
> and explain himself. God satisfies Job, explains that he does as
he
> pleases, and then rewards Job and has his friends apologize. But
the
> readers consistently claim that Job needed to be taught and that
his
> friends did the right thing and that you shouldn't challenge God.
>
> -----------------------------------
> Emulative Reading
> -----------------------------------
>
> Readers like to look for instruction in the form of models,
examples
> that they can emulated externally. If we could look like somebody,
or do
> what they do, then that would be as good as being them.
>
> Jesus' Miracles - I think a major point of the miracles, perhaps
the
> major point, is that it deflects from Jesus' actual goodness. What
is
> good is not Jesus' ability to do miracles, but rather the care
that he
> takes in doing them, how he does them. But people don't notice
that
> because they say: If I could do miracles, I would do that, too.
> Actually, if we could do miracles, then we would very likely be
quite
> selfish and rotten in how we used those powers. Note that there is
no
> record of Jesus doing any good deeds of any normal kind. He was
not a
> model for that - his miracles allowed him to be good without
becoming
> such an external model.
>
> -----------------------------------
> Convergent Reading
> -----------------------------------
>
> Readers assume that the readings have to all hang together, that
they
> all converge into a set of definite facts and conclusions.
Actually, I
> think a real appreciation of Scripture comes from acknowledging
its
> clashes with logic and the evidently arbitrary nature of God. He
may not
> be arbitrary, but then the evidence is definitely incomplete.
Certainly,
> he has the right and power to be arbitrary, which I imagine is the
> point. It seems that, as a teacher, God has the right to choose
what to
> use as an illustration, and what not. He's not obliged to be
consistent.
> But the reader does not acknowledge or look for any lack of
consistency
> - and I believe therefore has trouble understanding what he's
being taught.
>
> Accepting News from Angel - Zachariah asks for confirmation "How
can I
> be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in
years?"
> and the angel accuses him that "you did not believe my words" and
> strikes him dumb. Next page, Mary asks for confirmation "How will
this
> be, since I am a virgin?" and the angel explains.
>
> Responsibility for Sons - The sons of Eli were bad, and it was an
issue
> regarding Eli, and then Samuel became the priest. But later, it is
noted
> that Samuel's children grow up bad, but this is not pursued as an
issue.
>
> Jesus' Resurrection - Each of the Gospels gives an account that
disagree
> on the most basic facts - when and where Jesus was, who saw him,
and
> what he was doing. No two Gospels agree on any of these points!
There is
> an absolute scrambling of reality. Clearly, something is up,
perhaps a
> break in the fabric of time and space. But there's no care by
readers to
> acknowledge the complete lack of coherence. Whereas this lack of
> coherence is what best points to the possible reality of the
resurrection.
>
> -----------------------------------
> Presumptive Reading
> -----------------------------------
>
> The reader presumes to understand that they know what is being
written,
> and that it is written at or below their level of understanding,
instead
> of elevating them.
>
> Creation story - According to Genesis, the world was created in
six days
> and God rested on the seventh days. Actually, in my work on
conceptual
> structures, and deriving our structural world, that it takes place
by
> way of six divisions of everything, and there is a seventh that
> generates slack, and together they generate all of the structure
of our
> lives. Which is to say, that if we thought of "day" from God's
point of
> view, as an "event" in his life, then it might look very different
than
> our day. But generally the reader is not interested in God's point
of
> view. Even though this is the part of the book that describes
God's affairs.
>
> - The Three Days - Jesus rose on the third day, or as some
prophesies
> indicate, after three days and three nights. Now we can count it
or
> fudge it as we like, but late Friday afternoon to early dawn on
Sunday
> morning is not quite three days, not quite two days. My point is
that,
> frankly, we don't know what is meant by three days. Readers don't
worry
> about this, they presume we know.
>
> Probably a third of what Jesus says, if not more, we really can't
say
> that we can be certain what he means ('Wisdom knows all of her
children,
> etc.) But the readers don't worry about that, they presume
certainty.
>
> -----------------------------------
> Selective Reading
> -----------------------------------
>
> Readers tend to focus on the least challenging passages rather
than the
> most challenging.
>
> Sermon on the Mount - The most challenging passages are easy to
find:
> Love God, Love your enemy, turn the other cheek, give everything
away,
> do not divorce, be perfect, do not lust, etc. And elsewhere: hate
your
> mother and father, etc. But these are the passages that are most
avoided
> and least recounted.
>
> Paul - Instead, the churches focus much more on Paul's thinking
and much
> less on Jesus' thinking. Paul is the center of the (often
formulaic)
> Biblical psychology that underlies evangelical christianity and
the
> (likewise formulaic) church organization that underlies Roman
Catholicism.
>
> The Scripture has much to say on the secondary "hot-button" issues
of
> our time:
> - Paul says that it is a perversion (and a symptom of the
perversity of
> one's times) if people abandon what is natural to them in exchange
for
> what is unnatural. So what does this logic say regarding people if
they
> are born or grow up with homosexual inclinations? Certainly they
should
> not be pushed to be heterosexual. (Or vice versa.)
> - Do a Bible search on "womb": "For You formed my inward parts;
You wove
> me in my mother's womb." Ecclesiastics: "Just as you do not know
the
> path of the wind and how bones are formed in the womb of the
pregnant
> woman, so you do not know the activity of God who makes all
things."
> Jeremiah: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before
you
> were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the
> nations.""Because he did not kill me before birth, So that my
mother
> would have been my grave, And her womb ever pregnant." Now, people
claim
> to know a lot about what goes on in the womb, especially with
regard to
> abortion. But the Bible says that we don't know. God knows us as
people
> Before we are in the womb. And we may be people within the womb.
But how
> and when "life" (or our "spirit") enters the womb, I think the
Scripture
> says we don't know. But readers don't want to consider that we
might not
> know.
> - Samson, blinded by the Philistines and ridiculed by them,
decides to
> take revenge for God's glory, by giving up his life, and brings
down the
> building they are in, killing himself and three thousand people.
(Why is
> this never brought up in connection with 911? here is another one:
> Jesus' remarks on a tower that fell down and killed 18 people,
that we
> should take it's a sign for us all to repent.)
> - God ends his friendship with king Saul because the latter spares
the
> life of a king instead of completing the genocide that God
commanded.
> Saul kills the king later, but it is too late.
> - The Jews and the Arabs both consider themselves the progeny of
> Abraham, the beloved twins Jacob and Emad. Emad was the older
brother,
> but starving, and sold his birthright to his brother for a bowl of
soup.
> Their mother had preferred Jacob and advised him to insist on
this. In
> other words, the entire Arab-Israeli conflict boils down to a bowl
of
> soup a few thousand years ago. If we focused on that issue, then
it
> would not be hard to sort it all out and offer some slack. But
nobody
> wants to focus on the Scripture.
>
> Andrius
>
> Andrius Kulikauskas
> Minciu Sodas
> http://www.ms.lt
> ms@m...
> +370 (5) 264 5950
> Vilnius, Lithuania