On this page I’ll provide an overview of comparative religions I’ve discovered while
doing this work.
|click to enlarge
I was asked why we so often mention, “It is not 'what',
it is 'why'." Here is an example: Everybody lives in the mortal paradox of physical need to kill or die. We eat. To eat to
live we not only, with respect for other creatures, ‘destroy’ those creatures – plant and animal - (usually
only the certain ones that are not detrimental to our health). In the flesh sense we consume nature in order to appreciate
nature. In the spiritual sense we are guilty of taking life to have life.
'Survival-of-the-fittest' applies to the flesh but it is not of eternal spiritual significance… or of
personal spiritual realities to and with one another. This is where God’s grace in Christ finds its application: to trust in the reasons we do what we do that
give creedence to aligning our necessarily sacrificial flesh with His overall finished sacrifice... by honoring with
our personal decisions, our Creator above our temporal creature being.
Our eternal nature, with appreciation in experiencing our flesh nature, understands that we are here for a comparatively
short time… Further applied
to the dignities of respect for who each of us is to others, it is understood that materialistic application of needs to survive
often comes ahead of trust in faith in God. It confuses the issues of properly killing to survive with our rights to defend
ourselves for God’s sake. In
that confusion we apply our self-protective principles of survival to fighting among ourselves; personally, regionally, and
Additionally, without realizing it, millions of us approach
our moments with others, and ultimately to God Himself, in disgruntled resentment because we daily lose close to a third of
our conscious awareness to sleep. We lose usual sleep fretting about mortality thinking the Cross constitutes the Resurrection,
or the Resurrection represents Christ's crufixion; but they are most importantly all the difference in two separate events.
There is no nothing. What that means is nothing exists as a concept but not as a reality. There is no space
where nothing is, or was or will be, because there would need to be a place where nothing could be or would have been. Philosophy
struggles to address the unfathomable while missing the marvel of abilities to reason. We have eyes that will not work without
light. We have ears that will not work without sound. We have an awareness that cares. Yet, we believe we are self-possessed.
Overall, our consciousness seems to be more aligned with the powers of needs and desires
in living our flesh lives than with respecting those who seem to be either in the way of our overall well-being or adverse
to our survival. Realizing there is a 'higher purpose' in our personal commitments, we can awake in the morning
seeing it is a time to be thankful for the miracle of living existence.
Also, that is why, '...as often as ye do this...'; means every meal is communion. It is where grace is said
to thank Him for His mercy with regard to His provisions through our hands. We must remember to not be insulted when our pride gets hurt. We should be vigorously defensive
of our spouse and, together with him or her our underage children, yes; but not because others who we think ought to respond
the way we believe they should do not.
People are an ungainly lot when it comes to respecting others
separate rights in the Body of Christ. We identify too readily with other creatures… we call a loin’s ‘family’
a pride and attribute, wrongly, group protection within a family as our rights of indiscretion to invade and control the wills
of faith of relatives – consequently, then, neighbors, work associates and so on.
|click to enlarge
“It has to get worse before it gets better!”
is not true. The mistake of believing in the false faith of emotionalism is that God desires of us to be his puppets.
Our creature person is territorial with emphasis based in emotional/analysis attachment to past and future (have and have
not) while our spirit person is relational with emphasis based in insightful discoveries of trust with feeling/discerning
attachment to the now of our creature’s motives. Get the two mixed up either by the creature lording it over the spirit,
or approach the moments with an unfocused muddled jumble, and we have a real mess on our hands.
The different religions are attempts
to represent human prominence over trust in God, under various guises to keep
established this one root-fact of the central universal life: Men and women have at all times throughout history clung to
the religious creeds, rituals, and ceremonials as symbolizing in some rude or sophisticated way the redemption and fulfillment
of their own most intimate natures - and this whether consciously understanding the interpretations, or whether (as most often)
only doing so in an unconscious or quite unknowing way.
The subject of Religious Origins is fascinating. There are a multitude of books written about it, published
in ancient and modern times. The great difficulty in dealing with the subject has its own religious considerations that rely
in an inherent ungodliness to investigate why religious studies may be useful. Therein lies most of why the very mass of the
materials exist - and that not only on the account of the labors involved in sorting quality from what seems to be trash,
but because the abundance of suppositions presented as facts opens up temptation to a student in general Science to rush in
too hastily with what seems a plausible theory.
The more facts, statistics, and so forth there are available in any investigation, the easier it is to pick
out a considerable number of similarities which will fit a given theory. With other facts being neglected or ignored, the
views put forward enjoy for a time a great vogue of satisfaction. Then inevitably, because ungodly considerations are anti-faithful,
new or neglected facts alter the outlook and a new perspective is established. Unseen, or consciously ignored entirely, is
the ever present Truth of leading of God’s Holy Spirit to guide a seeker toward His purposes. There is also in matters
of Science, used as legitimate technique to keep established the idea that investigation brings more information that brings
increased understanding, a great deal of fashion to the exercise where personal senses of viability and/or status arise.
Such has been many times scandalously the case in Political Economy, Medicine, Geology, and more yet in such
definite studies as Physics and Chemistry. In comparatively recent Psycho/Social sciences, one would naturally expect variations
in approach mainly due to organizing methods based on the presumptions current trends of social intent the subject asks to
certify. A hundred and fifty years ago, and since the time of Rousseau, the "Noble Savage" was extremely popular; and he lingers
still in the story books of our children. Seeking for enlightenment through common educational techniques led to generations
of increasingly confused students thinking their ordering of attentions could be mastered through more of the same.
Then the reaction from this extreme view set in, and of late years it has been the popular cue (largely, it
must be said, among "armchair" travelers and explorers) to represent the religious rites and customs of ‘primitive folk’
as a senseless mass of superstitions, and the early man as quite devoid of decent feeling and intelligence. And that is the
key to understanding the perceived differences between ‘then and now’ where there are no differences at all in
learning mythology as if it somehow has been regarded as divine rites of observance. Reflection about ways of others as quaintly
inferior to ways of an investigator is the same method those others used to stabilize their differences from others in their
times and places.
A misunderstanding of the differences of mortal existence as uniquely separate and at the same time integrated
with immortal existence is why studies into religious interests of varied peoples finds its pitfalls. Instinctual understanding,
the acceptance of personal survival and well being in flesh living, is necessarily focused in and on physical life and death.
To stabilize fears of the unknown explanations for those things quite outside knowable reasoning are attributed to religious
consideration and therefore fervor to authenticate positions of protection and security. Whereas intuitional understanding,
the acceptance of personal survival and well being in spiritual living, is necessarily focused in and on immortal life and
death. From the perspective of intuitional understanding (the revealed awareness from the Creator Himself) religious interests
of instinctual flesh awareness are, then, understood as compensations for human lack in the face of Supreme Wisdom.
Since directive revelation from Almighty God is personal and rarely collectively social in mass experience those
to whom a prophet, priest, or spiritual leader is sent are still steeped in their flesh ordered understandings. So, it is
with belief and belief systems that are of peoples who are not within God’s plans of priorities in His choosing who
it is that may show His witness of reality. As populations have lived in areas distant from where the Word of Life as revealed
by God’s witness through a chosen people began, there arose religious ways that rose from the original Word as revealed
by God to ancient ones. This was at a time ages ago when human numbers were few and much less than far between.
As centuries transpired with peoples distant from their homelands to where new lands became home, traditions
arose from a falling away from those precepts and postulations from On High. It is why, in addition to human nature and needs
being the same, so many religions in separate and seemingly unconnected regions hold to very similar structures of belief.
Example: Some say, “The Shadow knows…” to limit ill behavior with trepidation. Not realizing a shadow knows
not what to do with what it knows. Religions come like flavours of ice cream in that the purposes are the same but, depending
upon an area’s seasonal/vegetational/animal influences, brings focus on the various aspects of natural observance.
When the study of religious origins first began in modern times to be seriously taken up - say in the earlier
part of last century - there was a fascination in Sungod worship because there was great fad of interest in the cosmos. Every divinity in the Pantheon was an impersonation of the Sun - unless indeed (if
feminine) of the Moon. Apollo was a sungod, of course; Hercules was a sungod; Samson was a sungod; Indra and Krishna, and
even Christ, the same. C. F. Dupuis in France (Origine de tous les Cultes, 1795), F. Nork in Germany (Biblische Mythologie,
1842), Richard Taylor in England (The Devil's Pulpit, 1830) were among the first in modern times to put forward this view.
A little later the Phallic explanation of everything came into fashion. The deities were all polite names for
the organs and powers of procreation. R. P. Knight (Ancient Art and Mythology, 1818) and Dr. Thomas Inman (Ancient Faiths
and Ancient Names, 1868) popularized this idea in England; so did Nork in Germany. Then again there was a period of what is
sometimes called Euhemerism - the theory that the gods and goddesses had actually once been men and women, historical characters
round whom a halo of romance and remoteness had gathered.
Later still, a school has arisen which thinks little of sungods, and pays more attention to Earth and Nature
spirits, to gnomes and demons and vegetation-sprites, and to the processes of Magic by which these (so it was supposed) could
be enlisted in man's service if friendly, or exorcised if hostile. Furthermore and more ‘modern’, myths about
angels becoming people and people becoming angels pervaded cultural awe and wonder. It is easy to see that there is some truth
in all these explanations; but it is a truth of the moments of human observances to the divine orders and not Truth in its
actual reasons people exist. True, it is belief in God and His ways people have sought in their attempts to gain a foothold
on purposeful activities, and religions have been the substitute for so doing. But, naturally, studies in comparative religions
is a religious study itself.
Each school for the time being makes the most of its own contention. Mr. J. M. Robertson (Pagan Christs and
Christianity and Mythology), who has done such fine work in this field, relies chiefly on the solar and astronomical origins,
though he does not altogether deny the others. Dr. Frazer, on the other hand - whose great work, The Golden Bough, is a monumental
collection of primitive customs, and will be an inexhaustible quarry for all future students - is apparently very little concerned
with theories about the Sun and the stars, but concentrates his attention on the collection of innumerable details of rites,
chiefly magical, connected with food and vegetation.
Furthermore, writers like S. Reinach, Jane Harrison and E. A. Crowley, being mainly occupied with customs of
very primitive peoples, like the Pelasgian Greeks or the Australian aborigines, have confined themselves (necessarily) even
more to Magic and Witchcraft. Meanwhile the Christian Church from these speculations has kept itself severely apart - as of
course representing a unique and divine revelation little concerned or interested in such heathenisms; and moreover has worked
to persuade the general public of its own Divine uniqueness.
In university courses throughout, (including religious institutions) positional intent of investigation hold
religious battles of supremacy over right rites of passage into redemption unto God in Christ; over the argument about whether
Paganism sprung from Christianity or Christianity sprung from the same root as Paganism. They both share the most part of
their doctrines and rites with the other except Paganism centers in the rights of personal flesh living while Christianity
centers in the rights of personal spiritual living. The popular writer C. S. Lewis stated, “The body does not have a
soul. The soul has a body.” As Paganism recognizes a soul there is the necessity to also hold God in contempt for causing
the human striving conditions of mortality.
The difference noted most assuredly is that where it is believed a body has a soul it gives the ideas within
personal instincts of volition to simply ignore the soul’s requirements for recognition. However, when it is accepted
that the soul has a body, the intent of the soul is for the Body to behave itself for the higher achieved purposes of soul
authority. So there comes in fleshly wisdom, as opposed to Godly wisdom, a type of godless godliness that tries to train the
flesh instinctual nature into ways of soulful living in order to be socially acceptable among others who use, unawares or
intentionally, worldly observances in religious ways. This is where definitions of ‘soul’ take on an emotional/spiritism
that purports to be the same as spiritual (of the order of compassionate respect) faith unto God in His leading the moments
Until quite lately it was thought (in Britain) that only secularists and unfashionable people took any interest
in sungods; and while it is true that learned professors might have pointed to a belief in Magic as one of the first sources
of Religion, it is easy to see that this obviously had nothing to do with Christianity in its call to abstain from argument
with God. The Secularists, too, rather spoilt their case by assuming, in their wrath against the Church and its errant religiosity,
that all priests since the beginning of the world have been frauds and charlatans - that all the rites of religion were merely
a devil's devices invented by them for the purpose of preying upon the superstitions of the ignorant, to their own enrichment.
They (the Secularists) overleaped themselves by grossly exaggerating a thing that no doubt is partially, if not altogether,
Studying what people believe will not produce why those people believe what they do unless the beliefs of the
investigator doing the study are from the same motives as those being investigated. On the surface that may seem untrue. But
application of the results of studies into religious matters necessarily requires a treating of religion as one treats cultural
phenomena. While it is true that religious systems are culturally phenomenal there is the unfocused focus on fear compensation
in all religions that actually speaks not to the fear of the unknown as instinctual wisdom calls for – the underlying
‘fear’ is separateness from the Truth in Christ unto God.
Behind it all, in all situations and circumstances of awed determination to hold to principles of belief is
the yearning of the creature man or woman to make the ‘what’ of living by ‘why’ living captures one
or another’s attentions. Basic urges of interest for flesh survival, compensation for the fears of death with regard
to appreciations for birth, call to be satisfied such as hunger, temperature comfort, sexual companionship, and a sense of
territorial defense for safety and privacy in eliminations. Instinctual flesh-based incentives require the ‘what’
of motives to absorb the ‘why’ of motives in such a way that ‘what’ actually is ‘why’.
Self actualized protections through survival-of-the-fittest determinations lead to dependence upon gods and
goddesses; who in their fantasy reflections support and defend the basic animal nature. Thus, the subject of religious origins
is somewhat complex to undertake. It yields many aspects of personal faith (a faith in the viability of self) for consideration.
Scientific religious seeking, if there can be such a thing, is only by keeping a broad course and admitting contributions
to the mortal truth from various sides. If the student believes there is merit in contemplating mythology to find reality
he or she will find that the valuable results which can be obtained only serve to reinforce the distances from why awareness
It is absurd to suppose that in this or any other science neat systems can be found which will cover all the
facts. The facts themselves are observances of other’s ways of dealing with their own surroundings. Certainly, who each
person is in God’s plan of reconciliation to Him, His way, is a quite different creature from those who are seeking
to establish who they are through emotionally exercised wonder over the powers of persuasion religious deification of ideals
brings. Nature and History do deal in such things to supply individuals and communities for a sop to Man's vanity.
It is clear that there have been three main lines of deviation from Creation’s leading along which human
speculation and study have run. One connecting religious rites and observations with the movements of the Sun and the planets
in the sky, and leading to the invention of and belief in Olympian and remote gods dwelling in heaven and ruling the Earth
from a distance; the second connecting religion with the changes of the season, on the Earth and with such practical things
as the growth of vegetation and food, and leading to or mingled with a vague belief in earth-spirits and magical methods of
influencing such spirits; and the third connecting religion with man's own body and the tremendous force of sex residing in
it - emblems of undying life and all fertility and power.
It is clear also - and all investigation confirms it - that the second-mentioned phase of religion arose on
the whole before the first-mentioned - that is, that men naturally thought about the very practical questions of food and
vegetation, and the magical or other methods of encouraging the same, before they worried themselves about the heavenly bodies
and the laws of their movements; or about the sinister or favorable influences the stars might exert. And again it is not
extremely probable but naturally evident that the third-mentioned aspect - that which connected religion with the procreative
desires and phenomena of human physiology - really came first. Human intent of discovery and victory over death’s mastery
requires the third to be first.
In the errant philosophical belief that lesser ancient man has evolved into a greater modern counterpart there
are postulations that desires and physiological phenomena must have loomed large on the primitive mind long before the changes
of the seasons or of the sky had been at all definitely observed or considered. We find it considered probable that, in order
to understand the sequence of the actual and historical phases of religious worship, we must approximately reverse the order
above-given in which they have been studied, and conclude that in general the Phallic cults came first, the cult of Magic
and the propitiation of earth-divinities and spirits came second, and only last came the belief in definite God-figures residing
This presupposes that God Himself is a conceptual undertaking Who arose from the processes of cultural development.
But, as physical flesh nature is up-side-down and backward from reality in God’s created avenues of approach to His
grace and mercy of viability in Him, it can be readily understood that the order of human development of religions is not
merely opposite from His order but has been manifested in all three considerations, space, environment, and self expression
in untold manifold ways at the same times, at all times, throughout history. Thus, using locations and timelines to gain a
foothold in understanding religious development in the past gives a thorough view of people’s apostasy against the all-caring
Each person has always had in their God blessed gift of will determination to meet the moments of a day in choosing
how to respond to internal and external events. Until one, and another, combined in understanding with the first to apply
their trust in faithing the directives of authority in His Divine right of glory, ‘get the picture’ of why the
delights of living in the flesh are created, the presumption automatically defaults to the will of self-ish pride. Selfish
pride over the reasons one has to do what one does is why the ‘why’ of God’s design is lost to the moments
of realized ‘what’ is done. Also lost are the reasonable senses of decency to respect the light of awareness of
life in others shared in such ways that reality becomes religious control.
At the base of the whole process by which divinities and demons are thought to be created by tradition and desire,
rites for propitiation and placation are established by Fear - fear stimulating the imaginations to fantastic activity. Primus
in orbe deos fecit Timor. And fear, because of trusting in instinctual preponderance instead of God’s benevolence, only
becomes a mental/emotional stimulus at the time of, or after, the evolution of self-consciousness of the individual and increases
unabated after that. It is widely thought that the development of personal self-consciousness follows the patterns of mankind
as a whole throughout history… as a developing organism of the cosmos but no real evidence presents itself to establish
a fact of the matter.
By categorizing ancient peoples before more recent times, in what is assumed was the period of simple consciousness
(caveman), modern conveniences have given people to suppose that when the human mind resembled that of the animals, fear indeed
existed, but its nature was more that of a mechanical protective instinct. As mechanically protective appliances have ruled
the hearts and motives of humankind there has arisen a being-ness where no figure or image of self is considered as in the
animal mind. Therefore there are fewer corresponding natural figures or images of beings who might threaten or destroy that
of the self in protection against the elements.
So it is that the imaginative power of fear is thought to have begun with Self-consciousness, and from that
imaginative power was unrolled to express the whole panorama of the gods and rites and creeds of Religion down the centuries.
Technology, being the panacea of mortality, presents a very real distance for the levels of conscious consideration involved
in the steps and stages of individual and community acceptance of God’s leading in transformation from instinctual self-focused
determinations into intuitional God appreciative tending to the needs of what needs to be accomplished for His sake in marriages,
families, and wider social significance.
Fear presents itself in the weighing of personal intentions with expectations. When the flesh rules the heart
motives of protective self-assuredness are kept in secretive/revealed balanced unbalance with communal imperatives. This causes
acceptance of social norms as normal and personal expressions that deviate from the patterns of group compatibility to be
measured abnormal. Religious observance serves to vent the hidden desires of instinctual yearning in such ways that social
acceptance turns it’s demanding rights of determination over inhabitants into controls the group can be relaxed within
their appeased senses of community safety.
The immense forces and domination of Fear in the self-consciousness of the human mind is a thing which can hardly
be exaggerated, and which is even difficult for some of ‘us moderns’ to realize. But naturally as soon as Man
begins to think about himself - a frail phantom and waif in the midst of tremendous forces of whose nature and mode of operation
he is entirely ignorant - he is beset with terrors; dangers loom upon him on all sides. It is noticed by doctors dealing with
people in areas where technological advances are at a minimum that one of the chief obstacles to their helping to cure illness
among indigenous or native races is sheer superstitious terror.
Thanatomania is the recognized word for a state of mind ("obsession of death") which will often cause a savage
to perish from a mere scratch hardly to be called a wound. The natural defense against this state of mind is the creation
of an enormous number of taboos - such as we find among all races and on every conceivable subject - and these taboos constitute
practically a great body of warnings which regulated the lives and thoughts of the community, and ultimately, after they had
been weeded out and to some degree simplified, hardened down into very stringent Customs and Laws.
In advanced populations, those living under a mostly secularized rule-of-law mentality, such taboos are augmented
by intellectual order where primitive (close to the earth) peoples are thought to be na´ve at best and ignorant at the worst.
Necessarily, though the outward differences tell of native simplicity and impaired development, the human course of advancement
in enlightened societies is not advanced at all because there is a trade-off of recognition concerning the pitfalls and successes
in anybody’s daily living. Avoidance of what is ‘wrong’ and acceptance of what is ‘right’ without
the foundation of why right and wrong are either is the equalizing tell-all for determining the intentions of attentions one,
another, or a group has in their approach to fantasy or reality awareness.
Fear is revved up and tended to not only of acts which might reasonably be considered dangerous, like touching
a corpse, but also things much more remote and fanciful in their relation to danger, like merely looking at a mother-in-law,
or passing a lightning-struck tree; wondering how the bills are going to be paid… and so on. Included for both native
and advanced populations, in definitely different ways are taboos against acts which offer individually obscure extraordinary
or attraction to personal pleasures – in native lands these may be noted as sex or marriage or the enjoyment of a meal;
in advanced lands these may be noted as, again, sex or marriage or the enjoyment of a meal depending on who means what to
whom in whatever arena of influence may be present.
Taboos surrounded these things too, and the psychological connection is easy to divine. There, again, we have
a non-religious religious assumption that psychological connections are somehow a foundational baseline of reality that anyone
may hold to as solid directive explanation. “Label it and we have found the reason behind the problem,” habits
of self-validation in the face of cultural cohesion are the same as a man in the forest cutting his arms in a health dance
to ward off the tree demon of death. So complex a system of regulations made life anything but easy to early peoples; but,
preposterous and unreasonable as some of the taboos were, they undoubtedly had the effect of compelling the growth of self-control.
Fear does not seem a very worthy motive, but in the beginning it curbed the violence of the purely animal passions,
and introduced order and restraint among them. Simultaneously it became itself, through the gradual increase of knowledge
and observation, transmuted and etherealized into something more like wonder and awe and (when the false gods rose above the
horizon) into reverence. We can see that mankind is still the same as from the early beginnings (in the Stone Age) of self-consciousness
where in Man since there has not been a gradual development - from crass superstition, senseless and accidental, to rudimentary
observation, and so to belief in Magic.
Magic has its combined willful realization from applied faith inverted to selfish results by attempting to acquire
messages from nature created by God, whereas properly applied faith looks to God as the generator of any noticed appreciations
earthly wisdom may bring from nature. Thence to Animism and personification of nature-powers in more or less human form, as earth-divinities or sky-gods
or embodiments of the tribe; and to placation of these powers by rites like Sacrifice and the Eucharist, which in their turn
became the foundation of community Morality as opposed to trust in the Father above Who always has been Who He says He is.
All religious observance, as opposed to trust through faith in Christ for Who He is in the moments of living
out a day, are direct attempts to make the Creator into a servant to the Created. This is hidden in many religions behind
the fašade of self-abasement, violence against other religious groups, or sheer casting aside of anything and anybody who
has any faith-based sensibilities, no matter how accurately aligned with God’s will of wishes that none should everlastingly
Praise, Sports, and Music
Music, like a sport, can be learned and played to produce
a performance. In music there is a song and in a sport there is the game. In that, baseball can be compared to basketball
the way a guitar can be compared to a piano; practicing a guitar can be mostly anywhere as is with practicing baseball. With
piano and basketball, a person must go to the instrument or the court. In learning both music and sports there are two aspects
that must be considered; that can, only with involved experience, go either way.
When producing finished results is the goal of shared personally developed talent, the focus is on demonstrative
performance for others, spectators, to partake in the overall process. When centered interest in becoming professional is
the choice of an individual, (rather than any desires from others to make something of their meddlesome pressures to vicariously
feed on their children’s’, friends’, or student’s achievements), there is entered a completely different,
though on the surface the same, way of approach.
Remember, having (materialism) as a way of being (awareness) is trying to keep the cart ahead of the horse.
Playing a song or game well is good enough for most who wish a rounded gratitude to his or her satisfaction with the confidence
to feel secure with others. Playing an instrument or sport with skilled expertise, professionally, requires an almost reverse
attention to practice compared to usual instruction. In both cases the rules of basics must transpire.
Music needs names and locations of note application to the chosen instrument and sport needs equipment name
and locations of active interaction to others and the field. Don't get caught believing you need a right handed
instrument because that is how you learned to write on paper. Some musicians have discovered a left handed instrument works
better for them right handed while some who do most of what they do left handed flourish well with a right handed
When it comes to personal practice, knowing the instrument in music and the ball respectively combined with
other apparatus’ as one may know ‘qwerty’ for a keyboard, learning the craft of skills is akin to practicing
with a typing tutor program... except different. Spending time, a lot of time, getting to know the guitar or ball; what it
can do and what it cannot do without forcing interest into making a finished product (or even trying to adhere to patterns
of music or game rules) gives a securely integrated understanding – personal knowledge - nobody else can make happen,
endow into, or force upon a student.
The usual difficulty with making ‘talented’ advancements in proficiency is trying too hard. A quality
instrument is designed to do its job. It is not for you to make it work, your attention should be in producing the sounds
you want without pushing techniques. It must be stressed, again, to practice not a song so much as knowing for yourself what
your guitar, (or whatever) can do. Timing and speed will naturally result as thinking about the mechanical basics fades away.
There is another aspect to music and sports that applies to anything else a person either chooses or needs to
do. That is when goals to become
proficient have not a temporarily motivated response to the ethics of personal or group motives (no matter how long-term pleasing
others to please one’s self lasts).
Caution: Fame in music requires performing the same tunes over and over hundreds of times again and again, year
upon year. Permanence in professionalism means to make adjustments that put serving public desires ahead of a person’s
personal private family interests. Their sacrifice for a musician, also, is in serving the Father Creator for His sake.
The assurance is that pleasing Him to lead and guide an undertaking will invariably and automatically bring
appreciation from those who may be quite impressed with the witness… many times for the wrong reasons. But therein is
God’s seed planting invitation to accept His hand in what we do that surpasses any determination we may have to make
good for Him; by not becoming, ahead of your own desires, what other people believe we should and/or should not become.
*** I received a note of inquiry in response to the tip, "All things are by
"What if I'm not invited?"
Ask. Nobody is obliged to say, "Yes." Or, is anyone rude to say, "No." Not to be taken as self-ish license to
restrict fellowship - always, of course, with respect to priorities of marriage and those to whom we are dedicated.
There is nothing wrong, or rather, there is everything right in asking for invitations to be a part of whatever
others are involved in doing. It is part of God's created natural/supernatural process for us to exercise our faith-active
will. Our heavenly Father is not in the business, through Christ; of backbiting, spiteful, stand-off-ish, exclusive elitism.