--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for everyone who responded to my question about our > relationship to dead people like Jesus. As I had hoped I was able to > read some fascinating perspectives. Some really took the ball and ran > into some complex worldview shifting perspectives, Turq, Marek, and > Edg (special mention goes to Edg for the pantsless puja story which > had me laughing. Perhaps the follow up string can be "Can Guru Dev see > your weiner?"), Sal came through with funny, appropriate song lyrics > as usual ( I would like to have my way with your CD collection baby!) > > The amazing thing to me is how mainstream the concept is of Jesus > loving you from beyond the grave. Presidents can drop it into > speeches with no notice made. Interestingly, if they declared that > Poseidon loved them, or that they loved Poseidon, the S.... would hit > the fan. It is an interesting litmus test for world views, although > some of you raised the bar pretty high above my pedestrian concerns. > (they are my boundaries and I love them more than Jesus!) > > Then Tom and Cindy dropped a bomb that had me off and running again... > > From the feeback to my original reaction I see how this post > also is a good one to ferret out our worldviews. Rick gave > a completely different perspective on the incident. I assume > that for Rick the value of an "awakening" is high, and as a > momentary lapse in breakfast serving followed by self-reported > good parenting, my comments were not on the mark. Judy > commented that I was exaggerating this incident's effect > on the kids and I agree.
Just to clarify: You were exaggerating the situation itself, perceiving it to be chronic and more seriously neglectful of the kids' needs than the data warranted. My point was that *even as a single incident* it could be traumatic for the kids, not just at that moment but long term, *especially* if the mother were normally highly responsible and rational. Depends a lot on the kids' age, though. <snip> Judy also > mentioned the need to talk straight with the kids to avoid > the weirdness factor, although "mommy is a multi-dimensional > being" may need some translation. Actually I was thinking plausibility in the kids' eyes, and not necessarily "straight talk." All I can come up with off the top of my head is something about Mommy fell asleep and had a bad dream, and you know how when *you* have a bad dream, honey, sometimes when you wake up you think it's still going on, and the monster is still there about to pounce on you, but all you need is for me to tell you it's gone, that it was just a dream, and you're fine. <snip> > If the story can be taken at face value, we have kids > trained to not disturb mommy during meditation so powerfully > that they overcame their own hunger for hours. You're exaggerating again. Unless these kids were teeny-weeny, they were perfectly capable of grabbing something from the kitchen to tide them over. And if they'd been really terrorized about disturbing their mother, they wouldn't have approached her at all. More likely, they weren't hungry so much as they were impatient for the promised treat. For that matter, for all we know, they were so absorbed in their play they weren't even thinking about pancakes until they'd gotten tired of whatever game they were playing. There's a pretty wide range of possible backgrounds to the tale as it was told to us, from horror story to BFD. You seem to have convinced yourself it was a horror story without even considering any of the other more benign scenarios. Earlier you did the same thing with Guru Dev and MMY. Seems to me that's a tendency you might want to have a close look at.
