skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Dad doesn't read my blog. I'm not sure the in's and out's why--it could be that their computer rivals the Tandy 64K color computer in age and memory capacity. It could be that he really just doesn't get into the whole "web surfing" thing these young kids today are doing. For all I know, he may view most of the web as a tool of Satan with pockets of righteousness far and few between...! I've never really asked because I don't feel like my friends or family have to read my blog to continue being counted among my friends or family--I *like* it that some of them do, don't get me wrong! But it certainly isn't a deciding factor in whom I love or like more or less (otherwise the husband would have been long gone as well!)
I could call Dad a shit-kicking, dumb-ass, ignorant son-of-a-bitch if I felt the urge (and who hasn't at some point in their lives thought this of their father?) and the only reason he would be the wiser is because my mother or my sister would tell him. (Tattle tales...)
However, I won't do that for two reasons:- He's my father, and I love and respect him too much to say things like that about him behind his back, and
- It isn't true anyway...
Add in for good measure that I usually respect his opinions on things with nary a horrible thing to say, and we have a pretty good relationship--a fantastic relationship, truth be told, especially considering the relationship he has with his father...
Be that as it may, however, he is one stubborn, ass-backward thinking individual at times, and arrogant to boot! (Hey, I had to inherit these traits from somewhere, right? The stubborn and arrogant parts, at least...)
But see, here's the thing: He has somehow managed to convince himself that I actually do believe in god, with Jesus as my savior and sidekick (with guest appearances by Casper), that I subconsciously know he is right and am too stubborn to admit it for some reason, that science will somehow magically "prove" his interpretation of scripture is correct (not too mention the young earth it "teaches us" about), and that OT god was of course morally right and good for allowing the Israelite's to kill men, women, and children to live on a piece of land that he "promised them" as his children...
And that was just our conversation over dessert when the parents were over for dinner last weekend... There is a lot more that was discussed over dinner...
I wasn't even sure where to begin...
My father is a smart man--a really smart man, if I'm allowed to boast a tad here. He can design a building with nothing but a pencil and a sheet of paper, to scale, with all the electrical, plumbing, and architecture sound and stable. He can get a notion into his head about adding three feet onto the living room of his house, and do it from beginning to end without a lick of outside help. He can look at any problem, anywhere, at any time, and come up with a solution that works wonders on the problem, and foresees and forestalls future problems that weren't even problems yet. He has more talent in his pinkie finger than I could ever hope to possess in my lifetime...
But I can't help but wonder how he checks that brain out the door when the topic of religion or god or Jesus (with guest appearances by Casper) come up... I don't know if it's the very idea that they may not exist which makes him run screaming, or if it's just that he's been so deeply brainwashed by his father of a Baptist minister, or even if it's something else entirely...
I'm okay with the fact that he believes in a young earth, believe it or not. I'll argue with him the facts and theories of the matter til the cows come home on it, if for no other reason than I maintain hope that a seed of logic and rationality will plant itself and he may actually look into the pseudo-science he's been peddled all these years. But it really makes no difference here or there if he believes the earth is young or old--it really doesn't.
I could even care less when he or Mom tell me they're praying for me, or that they felt god helped them make a decision, or that they felt better about this or that after some deep thought and prayer about a situation--it floats their boat, it keeps them sane, whatever...
And far be it from me to tell people what crutches they can or cannot lean on when times are tough.
HOWEVER...
And I'm not sure why he thinks this was okay. I'm not even sure if he even realizes how just not okay this was...
And I've promised myself I'm going to call him to talk about this just as soon as it stops making me angry just thinking about it...
You see, he told me what I believe. Not what he thinks I should believe. Not what he wishes I would believe. He said, "You know I am right, and you know there's a god."
Excuse me?
I think I actually said, "Huh?" The "excuse me" may have been implied. I know my head was shaking, but then again, we both shake our heads at one another when we are busy disagreeing vehemently on all things of a supernatural nature. It's kind of how we Hughes's role. When we disagree, we shake our heads and try to make sure that the frowns on our face, with matching furrowed brows, conveys the deep amount of disagreement we are currently feeling.
How we Zartman's role, however, is a different matter entirely. (Kudos and props to my mom's side...) We speak up, say what we mean, mean what we say, exercise our right to free speech, and don't give a great big goddamn who agrees or disagrees.
So while my Hughes half is busy shaking it's head, furrowing it's brow, and frowning most vehemently, my Zartman half is going, "How can you even think that?! Do you not hear the words coming out of my mouth?!"
We all say stupid things. A lot of stupid things. I realize my parents are also prone to saying stupid things. A lot of stupid things. They are not perfect, they are people. Just as I am not perfect, and also say stupid things, mostly because I am a product of them, but partly because I am human. (Hughes arrogance notwithstanding...)
But he sat there on my deck and told me what I believe.
I'm not sure if he gets just how "not okay" that is. I may be wrong (see above about saying stupid things), but I'm pretty damn sure I don't run around telling people what they actually believe "deep down." I share what my beliefs are. I share my opinion on what your beliefs are. Hell, I've called their beliefs stupid (an opinion I still hold to be true) in what I feel are tactfully blunt ways, meant in love and with what I feel is a proper amount of respect. (Again, though, I could be wrong, but I doubt they would continue to talk to me, offspring-status notwithstanding, if I were that rude, outrageous, or disrespectful...) But I'm also pretty sure I would never feel the urge to say "This is what you believe, you just don't want to admit it."
Never mind that that's supposed to be god's job (knowing what people are thinking and feeling), never mind that "psychic" has never been a family trait. If fact, let's even disregard the fact that maybe he hopes and truly believes that I do believe--is it really okay to make such assumptions about another person's life and values? It isn't like I decided to be an atheist while on the crapper last Tuesday, just because it seemed like atheists would have softer, more gentle toilet paper, and better reading material while shitting on the third rock from the sun!
In fact, this is the second time my father has trivialized decisions I've made in my life, the first time being when he found out I was gay, and decided, upon our first conversation since my coming out, to ask me if I was "still being stupid." (Because this decision, too, was obviously decided one random Wednesday morning on the crapper, when I decided that homosexuals were afforded more comfortable toilet seats beside windows with better views...)
Perhaps I'm not understanding something. Maybe I'm being too sensitive when it comes to Dad's words... Perhaps I do still seek his approval on levels I don't even realize, therefore when he makes such grand judgments, they hurt more than they should, or carry more weight to me than they actually do from his perspective?
All I know is I'm pissed, and until I can calm down, I can't talk to him about it, otherwise I, too, my end up saying something stupid to the father I love... Hell, maybe I'll pull a classic Hughes maneuver and just never bring it up again--who knows? (We Hughes men rock at not talking when we get in the mood...)
I just... Sigh... I just don't get my father sometimes...
Over on Leitmotif, Ergo was having a discussion about Human Perfection, and how, while it is possible for man to obtain such a state insomuch as we understand it to be so from a certain perspective, others who come at life from the view of "man as fallen" or "man is wrong" conceive of standards of probability and impossibility. His take is quite nicely put, but I wish to follow the lines of argument on a more practical plane, as I tend to think in terms of practicality, or obvious and immediate application as such.
The reason I bring it up is because, in reading his post, my mind reacted to certain "tangents," shall we say, and thought I'd expound upon some of the thoughts and ideas this caused to happen in my mind.
1. Man Was Created Perfect in God's Image:
No, no, no, not that I believe this, but it is one of the "standards" to which a Christian (mostly literal, fundamentalist ones) is led down the road to the "fall" of man, or the insertion of the "sin" nature that prevents man from ever re-attaining his so-called perfect status within the realm that they believe their god intended. In a nutshell, god created man in his image (woman as an after-thought from a supposed spare rib [which in turn begs how a creature created perfectly could still be so when missing a rib]) and thus, in all ways possible in the realm of earth and its reality, man was, indeed, perfect. But, this perfection, as it were, left much to be desired, as anyone can tell from a simple, short reading of the Genesis account. So let's start with a definition of perfect,shall we?
Perfection: 1 : the quality or state of being perfect : as a : freedom from fault or defect : FLAWLESSNESS
Free from fault or defect. I think anyone would allow for that as a perfectly reasonable working definition, wouldn't you? But, then, if god created such a perfect man in his image, how was man able to be duped by so silly and naive a trick as the snake going, "Hmm-hmm, doesn't that fruit look yummy?" Now one could argue that, as Eve was made from only a rib, and Adam had the audacity to be created from scratch, she didn't have much of a shot, did she? Or perhaps, one could argue that being "perfect" apparently didn't include a working knowledge of good and evil, therefore she didn't know it would be wrong to disobey god and eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (but then the whole "fall" story falls apart, as it were, for without knowing good and evil, how could she actually commit "evil" by eating from the tree?) Then there is the argument, the most logical one, as it were, that the story is just that--a story. Any critical look, using the working facilities of our supposedly god-given brains (which begs why more people don't use them) leads one to make supercilious leaps of logic and a suspension of disbelief that even B-rated horror movies can't attain.
Then there is the question of body parts alone, never mind the working facilities of brains that Adam and Eve couldn't employ even in a state of perfection. If their bodies were designed perfectly, in the image of sky god (although bodily structure is generally not considered to be in god's image--wonder why? Does the thought of god having a penis or a vagina really bother people that much?), how is it there are so many genetic defects, flaws, diseases, and such? If the body were truly "designed" and made "perfect," as a literal reading leads one to believe, no matter how disingenuously, how could the body then leave that perfect state simply from a working knowledge of the good and evil that was supposedly contained in a piece of fruit? Logically, if something is perfect, it cannot be imperfect, or even fall from that perfection, or it wasn't truly perfect from the get-go! We would also need to overlook the fact that if a perfect being created us as perfect beings who could not remain perfect, the being that created us (i.e., god) is also not perfect--after all perfection can not create anything imperfect.
Further, if one is to buy into the whole "perfect bodies" fallacy, where in the hell did the appendix come from? It has no function whatsoever!! (and if it does, someone needs to get mine back from the doctor who removed it when I was in ninth grade!!) One needs--again--to suspend disbelief in order to come up with plausible reasons as to why god, in his perfect design, would include a useless organ? (Never mind the extra rib that was used to fashion Eve!) Along those lines, one could supposedly argue the appendix was only used for eating "perfect" fruit (i.e., fruit not containing a knowledge of good and evil, or knowledge of snake anatomy, for that matter); or perhaps argue that we "micro-evolutionized" it away, which, in all actuality, a perfect body would have no need to micro-evolutionize anything away from anywhere--supposedly it's already perfect! (not to mention that, if the body evolutionized away from having an organ in a perfect body, wouldn't the body then be even closer to perfection as it figured out it didn't need said organ, thus negating the entire original premise of having a perfect body from the get-go?)
Then there are the countless mutations, birth defects, abnormalities--I suggest anyone who would like a firsthand glimpse, or better yet, an awe-inspiring account of the actual numbers that still carry on to this day of Cyclops's, webbed feet and fingers, double-headed persons, multi-eye faceted, hair covering, extra-limb carrying, tailed human births--live births!--that happen every day in our world pick up a copy of Mutants by Armand Marie Leroi. Subtitled "On Genetic Variety and the Human Body," it's a fascinating read! You've no idea! (And it's has pictures and illustrations!!) Point being, though, a perfect body wouldn't break down, wouldn't devolve into the hunks of junk we currently pull around against gravity, and there certainly wouldn't be over 100,000 miscarriages every year in the United States alone! God could have done a lot better with this "perfect state" he supposedly created us in, wouldn't you say?
Regardless, the "created in perfection" isn't a plausible working model, no matter which way you slice the pie. As to whether Ergo's greater point in his post, that perfection is attainable by man, I don't know if I follow it correctly or not. I may not be the brightest bulb (in fact, I know I'm not!), but I think even if you do buy into the whole "man is in sin" argument, it allows for a great read, so I suggest you check it out (and not because he links back to me in it! :D)
2. The Only Way for Man to Reach Perfection Again is Through Jesus.
Now, never minding the fact that we are now being asked to appeal to the very god that made us flawed (in that, what he gave us neither retained its supposed perfection, and even in our state of perfection, we simply needed to be asked and were indeed looking for something more than what had been provided), in the hopes that, if this radical cult leader form the zero-st century is correct and to be believed, he was again perfect, and died perfectly flawless, so that we can all join in happy bliss and ignorance with this creator for eternity (and I know some of you are cringing, as this would be your definition of hell! :D) A friend brought up a great point earlier in his comments on one of my older posts, and I agree with him whole-heartedly, that without a working knowledge of what evil, or bad, is, one cannot even begin to know what good is, and vice-versa! It is impossible for one to assess, for instance, the "goodness" or "badness" of a toaster, until such a day comes as a toaster stops working on you; but even then, you don't swear off toasters! You simply label that particular toaster as bad, and go out to buy a good toaster. Perhaps you may go so far as to label the brand of toaster as "bad," or, less than ideal, but toasters in and of themselves remain "good," not only because you have now experienced a "bad" toaster, but because having toast is, in your world, "good."
When it comes to fluid morality (and the other half of you that couldn't understand why we would think of heaven as hell are now up in arms over the very concept!), good is only as good, and bad is only as bad, as it affects us directly. True, one can hold to "murder" as bad without having been murdered, or having been a murderer--but murder has to have occurred within your realm of existence to be labeled so, otherwise you wouldn't even know what murder was, and without knowing what it was, it couldn't be bad. Morality is dependent upon human perception. It goes back to that wise old Chinese saying, "If a tree falls in a forest, but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Well, one wouldn't know unless one were there. And though one could reasonably argue about sound waves and vibrations and such that there theoretically was a sound, the sound itself is dependent upon your ear bones being there to catch the vibration, thus enabling there to actually be a sound! Without those bones in your ear, there isn't a sound, as nothing was contacted, or vibrated, as a result of the falling tree. As such, it goes back to "right" and "wrong." "Right" can only be "right" or "good" insomuch as there is a comparative "bad" or "not so good" in comparison.
Concluding, therefore, one could reasonably argue that naivete, or a non-working knowledge of right and wrong, could allow for a "state" of perfection; however, it is a mislabelling to use the word "perfection" in describing this state of non-morality. The opposite wouldn't be amorality, or bad, as this would imply a working sense of moral and good--this state would actually be ignorance. And in being naive or ignorant for eternity with a sky god that couldn't even keep your "perfect" bodies from breaking down and mutating, you have not attained perfection, you have obtained ignorance. Heaven could not possibly be a "happy" or "blissful" place unless one were well aware of the "hell" or "suffering" place with which to compare your existence as such. You can't know the beauty of a rose unless you've seen a rose and you've also seen a dead flower. You could know it is a rose if someone tells you, but unless you have something "ugly" or "plain" to compare it against, you don't know that you find it beautiful (and, even then, perhaps you don't find it as such, but instead see it as pretentious and gaudy, in which case you will still need a daisy or a buttercup to have a reference point).
Are you catching my meaning here? For a man to claim to be the way to heaven, you in actuality wouldn't be attaining heaven, insomuch as heaven is to be understood from a Christian perspective. You'd simply be attaining ignorance. And, I dare say, ignorance is to be found aplenty here on earth, and we are not in need of a place which would allow one to not have use of his faculties. For you'd only end up in nonexistence--which is where we're all going to end up anyway...
Cheers!
This isn't what I planned on blogging about, but I spewed it out nonetheless, mostly because when I was doing some surfing on the subject I did want to blog about (Possibility versus Probability), I read other things that made me think fear is the ultimate motivator for irrational belief.
I have always been fascinated, actually, by people's enjoyment of being scared. From the haunted hayrides, the corn mazes, the creepy houses, the horror flicks, the screaming and the blood--it boggles me more than fundidiots!
I personally have never liked being scared--indeed, even mild suspense can sometimes get to me, although I will state that I love a good suspense flick much better than a horror flick. My brothers would actually make fun of me when, if they happened to be watching a horror movie or show on the television, I would vacate the living room as soon as I thought something even remotely horrifying was about to make an appearance. Whether suddenly having to go to the bathroom, or making up some other such excuse, I would take that time to play the "for-once-not-being-played" Nintendo, or have the bedroom for silent reading. (We three boys shared a bedroom until I was seventeen, at which point I demanded my father build a wall in the basement at a key point in which I could finally secure my own room...)
I sometimes wonder if this is how I try exert control over my environment? Or is this me being a slave to my fears? I don't fear fear--in fact, there isn't much I do fear! I just don't like that feeling of unknowing, of the surprise that's coming, and ultimately, of the nightmarish stories my subconscious imagines in the dead of the night! I remember I once made it through (what I now realize is the cheesiest flick ever made) a whole screening of the movie Alligator, and for years afterward, I had a nightmare in which a giant alligator was coming down Toll Gate Road, trying to gobble up my family... And while I can appreciate the cheesiness of it all now, back then I was terrified at the idea of loose alligators. Go figure, eh?
I must then ask myself, why doesn't the fear of eternal damnation hang over me, or even my subconscious, to the point where I must err on the side of "caution" and "believe" just to save myself the fear of hell fire? Is it that, as an adult, I can appreciate the "cheesiness" of fire insurance for a consciousness that won't survive past my heart beat? Or, on the flip side, is it my survival instincts of self-preservation that keeps me from even contemplating the notion, much as I wouldn't contemplate watching a horror movie?
I think it must be the first, as the second, the "contemplation," has been discussed both here and on other blogs, about the ludicrousness of such a netherworld created by a being to punish beings he created and doesn't want to punish... The circular, anti-rational logic of it all, is more reminiscent of a fire insurance policy, nay, perhaps even a panic button people can hit at will in an effort to absolve themselves of misdeeds and "less than nice" thoughts or actions!
In the ultimate of ironies (much like having a spoon when all you need if a knife), one must remember two key tenants: One, that you need Jesus blood to "wash away," or "cleanse" your sins, even though through some sort of loophole, you still end up paying the price of sin (i.e, death), but end up with life "eternally" in the presence of the one who died for you; and Two, even though you have been "washed" or "cleansed" of these sins, you will still commit acts of "wrongness" or "misdeeds," and thus continually need to regret and repent of these misdeeds (although it must be pointed out, in most Christian circles, misdeeds do not end your salvation, just a close relationship with said god).
And you have to wonder (or, at least, I have to wonder) why wouldn't "salvation" erase the sin nature, thus leaving you sinless the remainder of your life? OR, barring some sort of teleological law about such a scenario (although a study of the holy book will reveal no such block to sinless nature through salvation), why not then BAM! automatic everlasting life? Why the need to still die if Jesus truly paid the price for all our sins?
As you can see, it reduces into an acrimonious harmony of illogical thought and circular rationale...
Fear, at its core, must be substantive, if it is to remain effective as a motivator (much like "justice" and "mercy" must have finite, measurable punishments for finite, measurable deeds, but that's for another time...). Fear is defined by Websters as "1 a: an unpleasant often strong emotion caused by anticipation or awareness of danger." In other words, you need a reason to be afraid, to have fear... Otherwise, your fear is considered irrational, and thus, is categorized as a "phobia." Phobia, from Websters, is "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation."
Hell, or even the once-removed cousin through marriage thought of eternal punishment, is a christological phobia. An irrational fear. Inexplicable, illogical, and brought on by an exaggerated fable of yesteryears beliefs. The reason hell has lost much of its umph in driving hoards to a "saving knowledge of Jesus" isn't due to a sudden gambling urge against Pascal's Wager, but by a continuing body of knowledge which points in the direction of logic, not pointy-tailed red-horned devils on one shoulder and beatific angels on the other...
And while my primal subconscious may still be dealing with the supposedly very real threat of being eaten by alligators (or its related off-shoots), I can rest easy in the knowledge that- Alligators are real.
- Alligators have eaten people.
- Alligators do not live in northeastern Pennsylvania.
Thus, there is a basis for the fear, and my conscious realizes this. The rational, logical portion of my brain recognizes the facts, and makes a decision which supersedes the more primal nature of "fight/flight," and as long as I don't feed this "fear" with heresy, false logic, and panicky hypotheticals, I sleep easy and don't plan my entire life, indeed my every thought and whim, on the basis of fear.
And, this I believe is most fundamental, fear, while maybe not widely recognized as such, is the sole motivator of continued religious belief, and it flourishes best in the minds of people who entertain false logic and hypotheticals...
Perhaps, as humanity continues to advance sociologically and psychologically, more people will confront the irrationality of god and his supposed eternal promises (not to mention punishments)?
It almost stretches one's faith in humanity to think so...
I usually ignore things like this. "Forward this" and "forward that" type emails usually aren't even privy to being opened, let alone perused! And at first, that's what I did. Ignored it. It was one of those religious forwards meant to appeal to your sense of decency, your patriotism, and to your devout faith in god. I know a lot of my friends are very strong god believers, hence I expect to get these every now and again. Such is life, right?
The email in question is in it's entirety below, and ended with the usual:
If you agree with this, please pass it on.
If not delete it.
Of course, most people who know me know that the way to get me to share an opinion is to tell me not to share an opinion... I know, I know... This time I played right into the right-wing's evil plans by doing exactly that--I deleted it. Sigh. But then one of my other friends just had to hit "Reply All" with the following statement:
IN JESUS NAME.... AMEN! Thank you for sending this along. I usually ignore forwards, but I am glad this one washed upon my inbox. I pity the poor SOB that dictates to me to deny CHRIST :-D
Ugh. Okay, that's the part that not only got my goat, but sold it into slavery, beat it with a whip, forced it to eat brambles, and then sent it home with a belly ache on death's door. (My poor goat!) Never mind that the email had nothing to do with denying Christ, but was about praying before football games... Which, while I suppose one could read into no state-sponsored prayer before a game as a "denial" of Christ, the stretch is... Well, beyond reasonable.
First off: Andy Rooney, right-wing blabber mouth that he is, never said the words in this email even though they are ascribed to him. Or, if he did, he completely plagiarized them. (Note that this email makes the rounds also crediting these words to Paul Harvey--which is just as untrue...) Actually, most of these words were written by Nick Gholson... But that's another story...
Onto the meat of the matter, the email itself. You know how these things work: it's filled with pictures of our soldiers, a cross or three, a bible--you know, just in case words are not enough, pics are included to portray another thousand words or so.
Pray if you want to!
Oh, thank you for your permission! Never mind that everyone in this country can pray if they want to...
CBS and Katie Couric et al must be in a panic and rushing to reassure the White House that this is not network policy.
Yes, yes, that's what happens when Andy Rooney says something in his op-ed block on television--people "scramble" to make sure Obama and company "know" that this isn't "network policy". Except that Andy Rooney never said it. And neither did Paul Harvey. So even though there wouldn't have been any scrambling, and no reason to to begin with... Well... Yeah...
Folks, this is the year that we RE-TAKE AMERICA & CANADA.
Who took them? Anybody? Anybody? You mean... No one took them anywhere?! I would think even the U.S. and Canada would like a field trip every now and then... But there they are, still... Well, there... Right where they were, spinning around the sun just like always... Go figure...
********* Get Ready *********
Keep this going around the globe.
So it's not just the U.S. and Canada!? Oh, dear!
Read it and forward every time you receive it... We can't give up on this issue.
Just so we're clear--the issue seems to be relocating the entire Western half of the Northern Hemisphere...
Andy Rooney and Prayer. Andy Rooney says:
As stated above, no, he doesn't.
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December.
I couldn't even begin to imagine how one would go about suing for that reason. And thank goodness that we, as adults, are now allowed to stop believing in imaginary beings! Whew!
I don't agree with Darwin , but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory of evolution.
Well, that's good because you would have lost. You see, the teacher was busy teaching you about facts, which, among other things, didn't include Santa Claus. The fact that you think Santa and scientific law are somehow related to one another is not helping your cause in any way.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered in any way because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.
Actually, it's very possible you did infringe upon some one's liberty. Were the football students coerced into joining in because of fear of retribution from not participating? (Yes, this has happened... Probably more often than we would like to admit...) Having a moment so that people can pray to their deity of choice is not the issue--having the coach lead the students and players as if suddenly everyone there were in fact Christian and praying to the same god, IS an issue, especially if that coach is a state employee. Especially if that "voluntary" prayer is being broadcast tot he entire stadium over the stadium's state-paid-for PA system. Especially if the school policy allowed only for "appropriate" messages and imposed other guidelines that give the student's message "the imprint of the state." Separation of church and state isn't a matter of opinion or belief--it's the law. That being said, I, as most other atheists I know, don't get upset at these little Pray-Alongs. We just hum quietly, count the ceiling tiles, or make faces at you while your heads are bowed... Generally, we find a way of amusing ourselves, sometimes at your expense, while you all pray to some invisible deity who, in all honesty, if he did exist, could probably give two shits about who does or doesn't win your game of choice.
So what's the big deal?
It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire Book of Acts.
They have in the past. And they would if no one ever said anything. And that's a fact.
They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.
Asking for no injuries and safe play while strapping on padding and a helmet only makes me question your faith more. If you're asking your god to protect you while playing, why the need for the shoulder pads and helmet? Not that I mind if you wear them to bed--Ooh, lala! But something tells me you have less faith than you claim...
But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue. Yes, and this is the United States of America, and Canada, countries founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect -- somebody chanting Hare Krishna?
So because there are more of you, screw everyone else's beliefs? Why should the Muslim player on the team have to sit there and listen to the coach's prayer to the Christian god? Why not let the players pray to themselves? Is the coach going to lead as prayer to Allah, then? In fact (and please pay attention to this part, it's vitally important...), we are not Christian nations. We may have been founded on some of the principles in life that Christianity happens to share in common with multiple other religions around the globe, but the Founding Fathers expressly prevented mentioning any type of god in our Constitution (despite many a pastor and preacher's protestations to do just that) simply because they knew it was divisive and did *not* want to go down the path of our mother country, England. They saw what state-sponsored religion could do to a nation, and thus, not only erected a wall in the first amendment, but also included a clause in the Constitution which forbade "any religious test" as a prerequisite to holding public office. I can't speak for the history of the Canadian government's freedom of religion, but I can assure you that the United States is not a Christian nation, just a nation that happens to have a disproportionately high number of Christians...
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.
As football isn't nearly so popular in the Middle East, and considering half of Jerusalem is under Israeli control while the other half is under Palestinian control (aka mostly Muslims...)--well, odds are about 50/50 depending on what type of prayer you would hear...
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.
So do they say a prayer to Allah in Baghdad? I'm just curious...
If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.
Only if the Communist authorities allowed it. I expect, given that they have to approve any and all religious practices, the Communist Chinese government would have specific words pre-approved--if approved at all--to pray before a sporting event.
And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit.
But you are offended that not everyone here in the U.S. and Canada may *not* be a Christian? Or--wait--are you offended because people may be offended by your practices holding up a sporting event with no religious affiliation whatsoever? I mean, I could understand a bit better perhaps if, say, Jesus had said, "And whosoever toucheth the pigskin, or the orange bouncer, or taketh upon themselves any sporting event not involving lions, should say a prayer, and thank the father for the blessings of sports"--well, then, I might understand your compulsion to pray for safety as you strap on 50 pounds worth of safety equipment. But since he didn't... Well... You see my issue, right?
But what about the atheists? Is another argument. What about them?
Um... We live here, too. And we play sports. And if you want to give people time to pray before a game--fine. We'll be counting the blades of grass, eying up the competition, and running through our last minute game plays while the rest of you pray to sky fairy.
Nobody is asking them to be baptized.
Um, you do live here, right? Happens to me at my house at least once every three months!
We're not going to pass the collection plate.
Oh, but you would if you could. And you know it. Just like that "it's only ten percent" line you try in your actual churches, with your stupid felt-board thermometers keeping track of just how close you are to the new roof, the summer camp trip, the missions project to Appalachia... You would.
Just humour us for 30 seconds.
Because you don't exercise your privileges enough? You need that extra 30 seconds (which is a lie, you pompous windbags! You go on for hours sometimes!) to pray--why? I thought your god was omniscient? That he knew your needs and whims? You need to pray before the game--why, exactly?
If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer!
What do you think we've been doing all these years? You thought we enjoyed staring at you down on your knees, delaying the start of every major event in our lives?
Or, just exercise their right to leave this country!
Ah, the old stand-by. "You don't like it, you can leave!" You'd like that, wouldn't you? Fortunately, I love this country just as much as you, I simply don't have the need to tell others how to live, what to do, and to be quiet while you sacrifice a chicken, or whatever the hell it is you guys do on Wednesday evenings these days. Pray all you want, I'll keep making faces, but I'll be damned if I'll leave simply because you somehow think it's a "persecution" that some people just no longer have the patience to listen to you twaddle off at invisible sky daddies.
Unfortunately, one or two will call their lawyer.
And Christian fundies never sue anyone, right?
One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do. I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.
Maybe not the world, but you Christians love to play the victim when in fact, you were making victims of others. You see, dear reader,this entire email stems from a ruling by the United States Supreme Court in 2000, when it was found that Texan school officials were allowing "student-led" prayer before games, when in reality it was just a ploy to get around the law forbidding coach-led prayers before a game. (Source.) In the Supreme Courts own ruling, it stated: "Nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day. But the religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged when the State affirmatively sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer." Hmm, just as I said above. Imagine that.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.
None of your rights have been stripped! Not to mention Jesus COMMANDS you to turn the other cheek! What has happened, however, is that Christian Privilege is no longer tolerated. We are still in process, but our country is leveling the playing field, so to speak, when it comes to religion in this country. How would you feel if Jews were suddenly demanding that a Jewish prayer be led by teachers every morning? After all, we are just as much a Jewish nation as a Christian one--yet I hear of no Jewish peoples complaining about their god not being present in school as the source of all that is wrong with the United States--why is that?
Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep.
Not every one's parents taught their children these things. Hence, religious freedom.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing.
Your bible. Not "our" bible. Again, that pesky religious freedom thing.
Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.
No--they are telling you to stop elevating Christianity above all other religions in this country. Again, you still have your right to pray--just not to expect the state to lead you in that prayer, promote that prayer, or in any other way make your prayer more special than anyone else's prayer.
God, help us.
Guess that praying isn't doing you too much good after all, then, eh?
And if that last sentence offends you, well, just sue me.
We would, but that would only feed your victim complex, you non-Andy Rooney-esque idiot.
The silent majority has been silent too long.
Could have fooled me. Seems I can't do anything without seeing your churches, hearing you on television, trying to keep you from making your religious beliefs into the law of the land. You are everywhere, yet still carry a persecution complex. Amazing the amount of self-deception that goes into these emails...
It's time we tell that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority doesn't care what they want! It is time that the majority rules!
You may not care, but that's the beauty of this country--majority rule with minority rights. This country wasn't founded by the mob for the mob. Mob rule has no place here for very good reason--reasons like the rhetoric in this email. And claiming that "you don't care what they want" isn't exactly a "love thy neighbor" type of position, is it? I'd like to hear you defend that before your supposed Creator. "Well, you see, God, I didn't mean that I didn't care, so much as I wished they would let me rule the country in your name. So you see, it was all for you, God!" Uh-huh.
It's time we tell them, "You don't have to pray; you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him.
We already knew that, and certainly didn't need to listen to all that rabble-rousing to get there. We don't pray. We do pledge our allegiance to this country (omitting that silly phrase entered by the Christian wing-nuts in the 1900s fearful of the Communists, "under god."); and we don't believe in god or attend your silly worships, but only because we made laws over the years redacting old state laws that made such worship compulsive. (A fact, see here.)
That is your right, and we will honor your rights, but by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away. We are fighting back, and we WILL WIN!"
Again, your rights have not, nor will they ever be, taken away. Freedom of Religion, dippy! (Jeebus, do these wing nuts have ear muffs on??) Saying you are going to "win" makes it seem as if you've lost something, and you haven't (unless it's your faith in your sky fairy, in which case I applaud you...)
God bless us one and all...Especially those who denounce Him, God bless America and Canada,
Yadda, yadda. Ugh. It's exhausting dealing with such stupidity...
Claims about discrimination and persecution would be justified by the Christian right if we were dealing strictly with Constitutional rights (such as the right to free speech, or the right to bear arms), but we're not talking about these things are we? As much as the Christian right would like to make this about a "violation of rights," it's really just a leveling of the playing field, and a loss of their "specialness." The truth is that Christians are losing privileges, actions, and entitlements they feel strongly about--not rights. They are losing the power to get treated better than everyone else. They are not actually being discriminated against--its just that they can no longer discriminate in their traditional ways and means, and are starting to be treated the same as everyone else. It’s certainly not unlike how the end of “white privilege” was perceived by whites during the Civil Rights era of the fifties and sixties (you know, the good old days when all these right-wingers claimed that "life" was somehow better?)
Christian privilege is one of the few traditional privileges that continues to be openly defended in today's United States. Other forms of privilege (like "white male privilege") may continue to exist, but it’s wrong actually argue in defense of them anymore (to many a discriminatory person's chagrin). Perhaps one day religious privilege will go the way that white male privilege are going, but conservative Christians are already bemoaning their loss and fighting tooth and nail (in the humility and love of Christ, of course).
One wonders what they'll resort to when all privilege is gone?
Random Christian: "All things are possible with God!"
Of course, the hard part is keeping a straight face...
It's actually very easy to disprove an all-powerful god--the hard part is convincing the believer that this is exactly what you have done. "Can god create a rock too heavy for himself to lift?" Either way, YES or NO, we've proven he isn't all-powerful...
Of course, many a believer will dismiss this as ridiculous logic (as if the belief in god itself weren't so much...)
ROGER RABBIT: Well, Mr. Smarty-Pants Detective, your logic is specious. What prevented Mr. Acme from putting the will back in the safe before they killed him?
VALIANT: Because he's not forty feet tall. The safe was up on the ceiling, remember?
Careful! Don't make too much sense, you may end up looking logical! Indeed, it should not be necessary for an all-powerful, all-knowing god to hide behind a Wizard of Oz curtain (complete with flames). It also shouldn't take a disconnect from fantasy to realize a foolish position about life, the universe, and everything... But for some reason, it does...
Blanche [to her daughter Janet, who doubts God's existence]: Oh honey, of course He exists. Just look at the beautiful sky, the majestic trees. God created man, and gave him a heart, and a mind, and thighs that could crack walnuts.
The really big catch is this: If it is such an impossibility that we evolved (but not such an impossibility that someone living in the clouds just got lonely and needed someone to punish), who created god? Apparently he's so much more designed than we are... God must therefore have a creator himself! (again, the pooh-poohing from the fundie without any type of explanation for using their own logic against them...)
Apparently we're all supposed to play scarecrow, abandoning all logic, thought, and reason in order to go to church on Sundays and praise a non-created creator because we're just too darn pretty to have been related to chimps...
Cowardly Lion: Oh, I do believe in spooks, I do believe in spooks, I do, I do, I do, I DO believe in spooks!
Sigh. What do you think it will take to get everyone to realize that god isn't the creator, but that he is the created? That we aren't made "in his image," but he in ours?
They like to say that all it takes is faith... So what is it that leads some to accept blind faith, and others to recognize it for what it is?
Grace: Oh, he's very popular Ed. The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, waistoids, dweebies, dickheads - they all adore him. They think he's a righteous dude.
Well, at least we know one thing--once you know it's only a man behind the curtain, there isn't much left to hold you back from recognizing the rest of the untruths a lot of us hold so dear...
Dorothy: Oh come on, Ma, that's superstitious nonsense. You know, step on a crack, break your mother's back, it doesn't work. — I know.
We should all know by now... Yet we seem to be stuck in some never-ending loop, the only thing changing is the outfit we place on our magnetic refrigerator Jesus... In the year zero, we liked him this way... In the Dark Ages, we liked him this way, unless you were on that part of the globe, and you liked him that way and called him Ganesha...
Some reruns are worth watching, but most? And with the same-old, same-old plot? Yawn.
We should all know by now... Yet we don't. We pull the curtains a bit tighter, we wipe away any fingerprints, we tell each other not to believe our senses, but to see whatever we want to see, just to keep that faith, that intangible, unproven, ill-thought-out, blinder-than-Stevie-Wonder faith...
And why? We like to feel special, I suppose...
GIRLS: Oh, he's special all right... Especially ugly...
OLIVE OYL: He's tall... Good-lookin'... And he's large... And he's mine...
GIRLS: She can have him...
Should we let them keep him? Much like we let the Amish? (but only mostly because the Amish aren't trying to tell everyone else what to do, how to act, what to wear, or who to sleep with...?)
Everyone should know better...
A Sunday school lesson refresher course: Satan is god's enemy; God kicked him and all his buddies out of heaven because, and I quote from that greatest of mythological treasures here:
Rev 12:7-9 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Please note the italicized text: war broke out in heaven. Heaven? War? Surely the two are antonyms!? Why, according to the bible, heaven is supposedly kittens and puppies and rainbows 24/7! War in heaven? That's kind of like finding out Mrs Brady was an alcoholic!
If the bible says this, what else does it have to say about heaven?
Mat 6:20-21 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (No stealing in heaven--it starts wars and breaks your heart, much like your seventh-grade girl friend...)
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (Marriage isn't sacred and we're all asexual... I think that counts as tearing asunder, don't you?)
Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Heaven has an expiration date, much like cottage cheese...)
Luke 22:43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. (Heaven has steroids, next to the party mix of uppers and downers...)
John 12:28 Then came there a voice from heaven, [saying], I have both glorified [it], and will glorify [it] again. (Heaven has a Public Address system...)
John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if [it were] not [so], I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. (Heaven has public housing--talk about your socialism! Of course, if Jesus is preparing it, do you think they'll all be decorated post-exile style?)
Rev 21:21 And the twelve gates [were] twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city [was] pure gold, as it were transparent glass. (Heaven is see-through; good thing we also all become gender-neutral, or peeping-tom-ism would be rampant!!)
Rev 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. (Heaven is not a gated community, and you need to buy the sun glasses in the gift shop before entering, but also:)
Rev 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. (Heaven's gates never close but no one can get in or out... Must be an invisible fence to keep the "bad people" out--or is that to keep the Christians in? Hmm...)
So, let's recap:- God makes angels, Lufy-fer is the most beautiful, there's a war, losers have to leave...
- God then makes man, man also disobeys much like the angels before him (so much for perfection begetting perfection), then God has to "sacrifice" (i.e., kill) his kid to redeem them. I guess he figures enough of his creation has been an utter failure and he wants to recoup some of the loss this time through a "redemption process." (Hope he kept his receipts!)
- God assures us through "revelation" that this sort of thing (like wars and stealing and disobeying) will not ever happen again in Heaven, and he hopes that by making us "sexless" like the angels, he can keep the peace... (also unlike your seventh-grade girl friend)
- Oh, and he hired a very fashionable decorator (Jesus; nepotism is alive and strong in Heaven) to build the new heaven (and your mansion!) with lots of shiny stones and glass.
- Once he decides we've "suffered enough," he'll send the kid back to collect the dead and the living that gave him kudo's and who are all possessed by his holy spirit (multiple personalities much?), give them all sex-removal operations (no co-pay, Heaven has a socialistic universal health care system), and let them live in this new playground as long as they promise to give up free will. (Lobotomists are also covered in Heaven's health plan.)
What could possible go wrong with a plan like that?
The devil is definitely in the details...
Now, dear reader, we've spoken of faith before: What is Faith?, Things That Make You Go Hmm..., Knowing is Half the Battle, A Proof of Faith, If You Don't Believe in Flying Pigs, and Creationism, Faith, and Proof, just to name a few!
But one of the recurring things that come up in any discussion with a rabid fundamentalist is something along the lines of, "I don't care what science says, I have faith in god and that settles it!" or "I don't care what you say or what the evidence is, god said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" You get the gist: Despite evidence and reason to the contrary, if they can think of a verse that "contradicts" the evidence (as if man's written word from 2000+ years ago could be considered "relevant" and "up-to-date" when it comes to man's wealth of knowledge), it must be the bible that is true (as it does claim to be the truly inspired word of god [actually, that statement refers only to the first five books of the OT, but most fundies overlook that bit of literalism...] and how could we argue with such circularity?).
But what about this verse?
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Take a moment, digest it, think about where I might be going...
Let's highlight the most important portion there: faith is [...] the evidence of things not seen. One of the more wonderful and intelligent Christians I know put it this way: "[I]t should not be taken as justification for claiming what we see doesn't exist." He goes on to reiterate, "it may make room for Christians to affirm an afterlife, for instance, but it doesn't justify denying evolution."
To rephrase, faith is a wonderful thing for people to have (in fact, as stated in older posts, we utilize faith on a daily basis!) as long as that faith is based on something reasonable, logical, and based on experience and knowledge! The problem with fundamentalist faith, with baseless faith, is clearly seen in such silly arguments as "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" In fact, such a statement settles nothing at all and flies in the face of all things based on reality as we know it, not to mention it even seems to fly a little bit in the face of Paul (but that's another argument altogether...).
As our growing body of knowledge increases exponentially every day with breakthroughs in medicine and technology in science labs across the planet, one would certainly not be remiss in pointing out that the amount of things "unseen" gets relatively smaller and smaller (although our understanding of the laws of physics continues to add more and more questions which we then set about trying to answer as well), so it is no surprise that the God of All Things in Times Past has become the God of Small Things in Times Present (and the foreseeable future!)...
Of course, the most jolting thing at the beginning of this century has been the rise of not only radical fundamentalism in Islamic circles, but the rise of ideological fundamentalism here in the land with brought light to the enlightened! ("G.E.: We Bring Good Things to Light!!") When our last president fully embraced the ignorance of his religion (exclaiming that "creationism" should be taught alongside the laws of evolution, for instance), people's whose brains had much better things to do suddenly had to put on the brakes and figure out who misplaced the Enlightenment, and once found, how to bring it back to the masses so that humanity could continue its course on finding The Answer. That it happened at all in this day and age is a bit embarrassing--after all, who expected humanity to suddenly prefer religious ignorance to the sound logic, realistic knowledge of the new century? (The enlightened certainly didn't!)
Regardless of whether or not this resurgent fundamentalism is a backlash against globalization or simply a matter of poor educational institutions putting up with too much riff raff, the question remains: How does society go about bringing everyone back up to speed on the current body of knowledge, and then keep them there? It may be all well and good to claim an afterlife--but what is the underlying motive behind preaching a seven-day creationism? In what way do such arguments hinder or help humanity? Even Paul, a favorite among evangelicals everywhere, preached that the only thing one needed to believe was that Jesus was the son of god, and that he had died and risen again--where does a belief in the seven-day creation period have anything to do with that message? And for that matter, what does being "pro-life" or "pro-choice" have to do with that? Never mind that the evangelical movement has lost its "mission from god" in a dramatic and dangerous fashion (one only need look at the recent murder of late-term abortion provider Dr. Tiller to see the consequences of unchecked radical fundamentalism), but it seems to me they've lost their sense of decency. After all, in what way could all this mobilized effort against health care reform and "protecting the unborn" be used more productively than in providing care for the widows and orphans, as was one of Jesus' main concerns? What would happen if Focus on the Family and the American Family Association, instead of trying to prevent gay marriage, used all that time, money, and propaganda to instead feed the homeless? Provide prescriptions for the elderly? Shelter the orphans?
It doesn't take a Christian to see where fundamentalist Christians have it all wrong, and in more ways than just the false science of creationism... They've become the followers of the God of Small Details That Ultimately Mean Nothing, something considerably worse than just being the followers of the God of Small Things... It may only take baseless, unseen faith to become a Christian, but it takes a special kind of on-purpose blindness to be a fundamentalist evangelical Christian... I am glad that I do know so many good people, Christians and non-Christians, who do take the time to say a kind word to a stranger, who hand the homeless guy a fiver, who offer the stranger a jacket or sweatshirt... These are the people who Get It, who realize that our common humanity is much more than ignoring the seen things. Indeed, these are the people who seek out the unseen in the hopes of making things better for all!
Faith is NOT a good reason for blindness to the human condition, and more often than not it is used as an excuse. Today's fundamentalists in religious circles (Islamic, Christian, Jewish, what-have-you) is nothing more than well-disguised political movement using god as a weapon and faith as a bludgeon against anything remotely "unbiblically based," even when (and sometimes seemingly especially when) the matters being discussed have no bearing whatsoever in the religious spheres and circles... I think that, if we are to drag humanity back past the Enlightenment (with probably a lot of the kicking and screaming we're experiencing today), we must once again focus on the basics of what it means to be a decent human being...
And have a little faith in one another... Not in the unseen sky daddies of the past...
You know, I just don't get it.
Now, don't get me wrong: I am not one of those anti-gun, anti-2nd-amendment, more-gun-control types who think everyone just needs more laws to keep people from murdering one another: Far from it! What I don't understand, though, is how these people who are fervent, verging-on-psychotic, right-wing nut-job Jesus followers are also the same types who would brandish sixteen pistols, seventeen shot guns, seven rifles and a war chest of ammo...
Or is it just me? Does anyone else see... well, something not quite right about this image?
Let's look at the facts: There is not a command that says "Never go to war," although the OT god was so much about war, you would of thought his commission on giving the so-called "holy land" to Israel was close to 90% (God, Jesus, and Ghost Realty, Inc.)! But when it comes to the new testament? You read things like "turn the other cheek"; "love your enemies"; "whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me." When Jesus was getting arrested to be put on trial (and eventually nailed up like an oil painting) and Peter cuts off the ear of the high priest, did Jesus cheer him on? Grab his sword and say, "I can take it from here, Petey"? He admonished his disciples and (supposedly) healed the priest: In Matthew he is reported to have said "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword..."; in Mark he is recorded to have said "No more of this!"
When the Pharisees got everyone in an uproar and they tried stoning him, did he start throwing rocks back? Grab a sword and go all jihad on their asses? No, he "passed through them" (became Casper, if you will) and walked away... When I read "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord," one wonders how many of these southern baptists and what-not think, as the bible is to be taken quite literally, that guns don't count--it's the sword they need to be concerned with... (Perhaps that might explain a lack of enthusiasm for the art of fencing here in the states?)
Of course, many a Christian likes to pull the old 10 Commandments out at this point: "The Bible says 'Thou shalt not MURDER,', not 'Thou shalt not kill!' so there!" (I have to be amazed that this is still the only bit of actual Hebrew most of these right-wingers have learned...) And it's true: it is "Thou shalt not murder" if one translates it correctly. But what is murder?
There are no disclaimers about self-defense not being murder. There are no asterisks (*) nearby calling attention to a footnote that reads "Except when protecting your land, crops, wife, child(ren), goats, sheep, cows, and American-made pick-up truck." If every person--let me repeat, every person--is made in god's image, and every human has an eternal soul, and you kill that human despite the NT examples set forth by your man-god...
What makes your life more important than the robber or murderer? Sure, you can justify it til the cows come home (or at least reasonably close to home), but can you find me the disclaimer? The one that reads "if your life is in imminent danger, you are no longer committing murder, you are simply killing"?
If one looks at the entirety of the new testament, the portion of the bible we are supposedly living under, show me where violence on the part of a follower of Jesus is condoned or otherwise not frowned upon...?
And remember context: The "sword" in the new testament? Always is a metaphor--it is never once referred to as an actual physical weapon to be used by a follower of Jesus...
But that's probably only because shot guns hadn't been invented yet... And Rome must have had sword-control laws in place... So now we have to ask, who would Jesus have shot? Anyone? Anyone?
But... No one even mentioned it! you're thinking...
Visiting Scientist: Surely you don't believe that horseshoe will bring you good luck, do you, Professor Bohr?
Bohr: I believe no such thing, my good friend. Not at all. I am scarcely likely to believe in such foolish nonsense. However, I am told that a horseshoe will bring you good luck whether you believe in it or not! How can one argue with such logic?
Indeed, it's much like the "What harm does it do to believe in God?" (Ask the last group that drank the Kool-Aid...) For the record, Bohr is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, but there he is, with a freakin' horseshoe hanging on the wall over his desk. And why? Even he isn't sure...
We humans are a generally stupid species, for all of our technological innovations and such--perhaps our one saving grace (perpetual curse?) being we are just smart enough to know how stupid we are without being quite smart enough to know how to not be so stupid. Why, for instance, do we knock on wood? Call off on Friday the 13th? Expect people to act just a tad crazier under a full moon? Worship gods? Pray to angels?
Did you know that, while wearing a seat belt has been known to save more lives in the drivers' seat of a moving vehicle, the number of pedestrians and cyclists who die increases in areas where seat-belt wearing is mandatory? Honestly! Any lives "saved" through the use of seat belts has been negated by the fact that, since the drivers feel more secure in the automobile, they in fact drive more recklessly than they had previous to being forced to wear such a safety device! But so many people believe that seat belts save lives that we thus made a law saying you must wear one, even though as a result more people will now die--just on the other side of the wheel... Gotta love the irony there.
Remember back in the 80s when we were all told that heavy rock music stars actually recorded Satan speaking backwards on their records? (How many of you just wondered what the heck a "record" was?) People by the hundreds threw out thousands of dollars worth of albums so that their children wouldn't be influenced by the evil Satanic speech coming from their record players (as if!!). Most of these songs you can now hear on any commercial-filled yet Satan-free "classic rock" or "easy listening" station.
Now, somewhere between the unreasonable panic over swine flu and the even more unreasonable panic over the thought of terrorists using a cargo container to sneak in a nuclear bomb (as if...), one wonders how the term "common sense" ever came to be coined when it's obvious so many people lack the very stuff. (Perhaps "common sense" is just one of those mythical things, like demons, gremlins, and luck dragons...? Often mentioned, never seen...?) Yet for sense to be "common" (in that, every one is supposed to have it), one has to simply observe how many buildings do NOT have a 13th floor; how many people refuse to go to work on Friday the 13th; how many actually stop and change their path to avoid going under the ladder (I actually think a painter made this one up just to prevent himself from getting nervous up there watching all those doofs go under him!). What is it about irrational and illogical beliefs that so many refuse to give them up?
Could it all actually be for shits and giggles? Somehow I doubt this...
Most people know the principle that any action causes an equal and opposite reaction. (Okay,maybe you don't, just google it and it's won't be long til you're all caught up.) We step on a loose rock and lose our balance, we quickly form quite a few beliefs:- Falling hurts
- Loose rocks cause falling
- Loose rocks are dangerous
- Loose rocks are to be avoided whenever possible
But, before you know it, all things "loose" are suspect. Of course, this is a very logical conclusion to come to, not only because of your experience, but it's rationally sound. Loose footing = falling down = pain. It's not that hard, is it?
But then think about "Break a leg!" To wish an actor or performer "Good luck!" is to jinx them--why? Because somewhere along the way, a few to many people were wished "good luck" before their performance and proceeded bomb in front of an audience. There's no direct correlation between these spoken words of "good luck" and bombing your rendition of "Baby Got Back!" (one wonders how many contestants on American Idol have been inadvertently wished "good luck" before Simon ripped their hearts out with a toothpick). But our minds do make that correlation for no good reason. It's illogical, irrational, very unsound, and if you based your thesis for graduating on such a premise, they'd revoke your right to say anything at all about anything afterward! We silly, stupid humans do this sort of thing all the time!
How many of us know rationally that knocking on wood doesn't do anything, yet, once we say something out loud, there go our knuckles, banging out a River Dance of the fingers! We know that those random numbers we picked at 2:00 pm are just as unlikely to be winners at 8:55 pm, yet we are 90 percent more likely to be unwilling to trade our lottery ticket for another ticket of equally random, equally chance of winning numbers at 8:55 then we were at 2:00... Why? Who knows... Because we're stupid. We believe prayer actually does something... We believe standing in the rain causes a cold... We believe all sorts of crazy, stupid things...
With a little luck, here's hoping this post causes you all to stop and think before you start knuckling out the Star Spangled Banner...
As if "luck" has anything to do with it...
.JPG)
We are a curious creature, are we not? I do believe we are the only ones that can actually think about ourselves while simultaneously thinking about thinking about ourselves...
But that's a philosophical dead-end... At the moment...
Oddly, most of the things that form who we are as people are locked in the recesses of our minds, the formative years in which most us (if not all of us) cannot recall nor think about or ponder on--between the merging of our genes from our biological parents to the nurturing we receive in the beginning (not to sound all biblical about it!) make us who we are, and in turn bias us toward a lot of our later actions, desires, motivations, fears, worries, and wonders. Not that these cannot change through either further outside or inner factors (a death, an injury, the continuation of "nurture" in a sense), but most of us experience a relative "freedom" from the most cruel and unusual of circumstances, allowing us to mostly remain the core human being we became at conception through young childhood. (Granted, these are my opinions and feel free to disagree, of course, but from all I've seen and read and thought over, this mostly holds true...)
Anyway, back to it: The other evening, I was out having a great evening and it was said to (and about) me, "He avoids adversity. The only adversity he's ever had was the military!" Regardless of the emotions this elicited from my mind, it did begin my mind turning and thinking: Isn't "adversity" really open to interpretation? I mean, not only is one man's adversity another man's walk in the park, so to speak, but the term itself tends to open-ended gradation, doesn't it? I mean, what is adversity? And who is to decide how much is "too little" or "too much" adversity for one person to bear? And further, is an avoidance of adversity a sign of cowardice, or a sign of intelligent avoidance? Again, it's probably in the eye of the beholder sitting in judgment of another, isn't it?
My mother is very fond of saying "God never gives anyone more than they can bear." Of course, if that were true, no one would ever go crazy or insane in traumatic times, would they? Of course, she is also fond of saying "Everything happens for a reason," as if reasons were the end-all be-all of our existence.
Or are they? One of the first things we learn as children is to ask "Why?" Why indeed! "Why is the sky blue?" "Why can't I go there?" "Why did you say that?" All in an attempt to find out where we are, and how we fit into that picture, our environment. While many a child has driven their parents up one wall and down the other with the endless queries, these are the times and the questions which form the later human being (if indeed circumstances even lend themselves for a child to ask about who it is and why it's there...!). All of which will eventually lend itself to how these young persons will react (or act) in the face of "adversity" of whichever degree presents itself (in terms of one's perceptions of adversity and its varying degrees that individual thereof holds!).
If any given person takes the time to reflect on what they do or don't find to be adverse, that is. How many persons take the time (perhaps we should ask, have the time? make the time?) to not only think about things in general, but themselves in particular? Why they feel this way about this? That way about that? A certain reaction to this person or that circumstance?
A certain general attitude?
I'm a big "believer" in you are who you think you are (scare quotes on purpose--know why?) and an even bigger "believer" in that only you can make that happen. But beyond that (and this may get a bit dodgy, I suppose) I find it even more important to let others be themselves, if you catch my meaning. To say it slightly longer and a bit clearer (I hope!), just as it is important to know yourself and hopefully to like yourself, I believe it just only slightly less important (perhaps equally as important) to let others be themselves insofar as it is not an infringement on others (or yourself). A large part of who you are is how you react and engage with others in your environment, both from within and without!
Of course, this greatly simplified philosophical excursion has smaller parts and larger ramifications (what wandering wonderings don't!) but to slightly sum up (without getting into the personal details--after all, I have to retain some type of mystery or else you'll grow bored and find someone younger!) when it comes to one's proclivities toward engaging, avoiding, embracing, or dealing with "adversity," can one really say for certain who is dealing with them and how they are fairing?
Or should we simply reserve our harshest judgments for ourselves and allow others to lead their lives in whatever manner makes them content?
Should contentment even be one of our goals in life?
Okay, this could go on forever, granted. Suffice it to say this:
There is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong. --H.L. Mencken, Prejudices
Indeed. But the beginning of finding a solution that isn't wrong?
Know thyself.
The rest should fall into place...
Unless you find out you aren't any good at it... :D
We dream of the day when, the very men and women who were "created" equal are actually treated that way. When no one goes hungry, no one get sick, the old die peacefully and the young grow up healthy, strong, well-educated, with respect and dignity...
What is the cost of this Utopia? Some seem to think it's in giving your life over to a god, or an equally-worshiped deity of some kind. Others grasp at platitudes and proverbs and turn them into mantras for life.
I've just finished watching the 1988 version of the film Appleseed, which I first heard about over at Exploring Our Matrix in this post. Granted, I haven't seen the actual movie James McGrath is speaking of here--it's sitting on my coffee table as we speak, waiting for me to first finish the 2004 remake Appleseed of the 1988 version of Appleseed I just finished watching so that I can then watch the third installment in the series also named Appleseed... (You follow all that?)
Basically, in the city of Olympus, 80% of the humans have been genetically modified since birth to be happy in this Utopia, created after WWII, while the other 20% have been brought in "from the outside," "saved" as it were, from the fate worse then death they had been living beyond the walls of Olympus...
And it was killing them, these humans. (Some of them anyway...). Right from the outset we witness a woman go off the deep end (quite literally!), unable to live in the perfect society to which she has been brought, longing for her freedom from the "perfectness" of it all...
What is the cost of Utopia? Is it our freedoms? In Christian mythology, after this life full of its hardships and toils surrounded by a curse of "original sin" and pain and death, we will be brought to a place of perfect peace and tranquility, where no sadness exists, food is plentiful, pain not even a memory, and joy abounds like a two-year-old boy in a mud puddle!
Trust me, you wouldn't be the first person to cry, "Ugh! Sounds like hell!" (One wonders how many Christians will actually end up there and come to the same conclusion!!) Most Western religions actually vary very little on this theme (although one wonders what happens when the Muslim has slept with all seventy-two of his virgins... Does he apply for new ones? Or simply live the rest of his eternal afterlife being nagged by seventy-two different women?), and since I've been told multiple times that hell is exactly where I'm going, I can't help but wonder if that means I'll be in their heaven after all... (unfortunately, however, this would ruin the promised experience for them...)
I can't help but think that if it was bliss and peace we as humans truly desired, we'd have it by now... What, after all, can we not achieve if we but try? And to be honest, the effort these days is hardly much more than a whim. Sure, we love the stories of how billionaires spend money to rid the malaria from the tiny corners of the Earth where it still thrives (and true, too, that it thrives there unnecessarily!). But we also love the story of the man or woman who brings themselves up by their own boot straps, creating a better life for themselves and/or their children through sheer will power and guts alone--could it be these romanticized stories of hardship and pain are the reason alone we haven't achieved are own Utopia already? Are we just too lazy to be bothered with those backwoods corners of the Earth that haven't eradicated malaria (or whatever) themselves, waiting for the heroic story of the local person who did it without Bill Gates' money?
Or could it be that we already know that, were we to even try, something else would come along and ruin the dream?
What is the price of Utopia? What is the cost?
I recently read on a chat site where our planet would be a lot better off if we as humans didn't even exist--better off for who? The animals? As if they wouldn't continue hunting each other for food and territory... As if animals still wouldn't go extinct... As if volcanoes weren't just as effective--if not better--at spilling carnage and pollution into the atmosphere... "Better" is very subjective, as we can see. Additionally, how could something be labeled "better" if no one were around to say what "better" actually was? And how could it possibly be "better" for us--the very keepers of such whims and notions as "better" and "worse," "good" and "bad"--to not be here?
Utopia may be the dream for most--call it "heaven," "nirvana," "Abraham's bosom"--it all means the same thing--and end to Life.
"Life is pain, highness!" the man in black cried to the weeping woman who wished simply to be back safe in the palace with the man she did not love. To finish the quote? "Anyone who says differently is selling something..."
Selling heaven, selling salvation, selling a gadget for $19.95 that slices, dices, and does the dishes afterward (for an additional $5.95, of course, and only in the next five minutes...)
This post may seem a bit dreary to you, dear reader--after all, if life is nothing without the pain and suffering which made us--continually makes us--who we are and what, pray tell, is the point?
Perhaps you missed it--Life is the point. If eternal bliss means feeling nothing, I'll kindly take a pass. If peace forever means giving up being me? I'll wait for the next car. If reaching Utopia means I must give up my flaws and imperfections, then what's to become of me? Who will I be? What will keep me human? How can it possibly be an afterlife if the life part has been eradicated?
Yes, it sucks to being born with nothing and having to struggle for that first breath of air. It blows even bigger monkey chunks to die after struggling for so long to make it however far you make it in life--what with the cars, the house, the 2.5 kids, and the dog that thinks you're god... But the reason you appreciate them so IS because of the work involved--the struggles, the pain, the adversity, and ultimately the triumph--all before the next thing comes along that needs a good conquering.
It could be that perhaps Utopia would be best--after all, how can you possibly miss living if you don't remember having lived? If all the pain and sorrow and whatnot have been removed, how are you going to know all that you're missing out on? All the living you had done to reach this Utopia? If Utopia strips you of everything that made you who you are and everything you have experienced, perhaps you can be brainwashed into loving the fact that nothing ever happens for eternity...
Of course, you may as well just call it death... After all, isn't death what comes after life?
I know, I know, dear reader. You think me a slacker--a lazy, good-for-nothing blog-abandoning sloth. The truth is I've been so busy in the physical world my digital world has suffered, and I do apologize for that.
But as I sat down tonight--my first night of leisure in what seems an eternity--I read something so entirely disturbing I had to rip myself away from the leisurely pursuit of reading other blogs to post about it. Mind you, you may think it not a big deal and actually kind of a bore, but as it's my blog, I think my concerns take a bit more precedence than yours. ;)
I think it important to "know thine enemy," as it were, and after spending about two hours reading those blogs I generally enjoy and agree with (when it comes to blogs of opinion and not just daily life), I like to take some time to see what all the fundies are up in arms about. What's getting their goat lately, what's eating their cheese, what's taking the "fun" out of "fundamentalism," so to speak.
I stopped at one web site I hardly ever check on anymore, mostly because I find it's authors so totally warped and wrapped up in the dogma as to make the Pharisees of Jesus' time look like kittens who hugged too much.
Their latest "comment-getter" can be surmised as such: Teaching evolution causes people to kill people. Creationism and Genesis are the only things that can save us from ourselves. Which, to say the least, is about as dogmatic and simple-minded as it gets. I said as much (putting it as nicely as I could), but then I felt the need to come back here and say my own piece. I'm sure the author's will follow back here (and perhaps be a bit dismayed to find I'm a bit harder on them over here than I was over there) but such is life. After all, if I can't please everyone, I may as well blog about it, yes?
What really got my goat (if we are so inclined to beat a metaphor like the proverbial horse in need of an undertaker) was the following statement from the article to which they were "discussing":
The president of Creation Worldview Ministries says decades of teaching "evolution only" in public schools and universities is partly responsible for crimes such as the mass shooting earlier this week in Virginia.
Dr. Grady McMurtry [...] says, public schools and universities have taught the theory of evolution as fact, with no opposing viewpoints — and the result, he contends, is a lack of respect for human life.
Therefore, he asserts, people should not be surprised when mass shootings occur, such as the one on the Blacksburg university campus on Monday.
As you can tell, this article (and most likely this blog post by them) is a bit dated, but nonetheless speaks to the dangerous mindset of fundamentalism.
It's still a bunch of hogwash. Let me explain:
As I touched on in a few earlier posts (here, here, and here, just to name a few), teaching creationism as if it were a science, let alone pretending it's some semblance of a good argument, is one of the most immoral things fundamentalists have tried to do for years. Not that trying to claim humility and humbleness while claiming you are special enough to be worth the death of a god wasn't a bad enough irony-laden position, but now to actually try to spin your fairy tale as "science that will prevent murders"? It's like they are in a one-man race toward the bottom of what it means to be stupid while appearing to be smart--and failing miserably.
To begin with, evolution is not about us being "glorified animals." It is a theory (much like gravity and flight, which I'm sure will be the next bone of contention among fundamentalist circles) which explains, quite succinctly, adequately, and truthfully, about the diversity of life upon this, the third rock from the sun. It does not speak to humanities supposed "greatness," it does not dwell on our "superiority," and is not a driving philosophy to fill the empty hours when people who wish for something just a bit more than life itself say such boorish things as "Why am I here?" and "What is my purpose in life?" As if we all have the time to give you meaning and purpose. Get a life.
Second, if anything serves to drive down meaning and purpose (again, as if living life itself weren't wonderful enough), creationism teaches nothing more than that god was bored one day, just he and his other two supposed personalities in their timeless existence, and he decided to create mud that he could play with and bring to life. And not content just to play with that life, he pretended to kill one of his personalities for the sake of "buying back" the "souls" of his Ken and Barbie dolls so that he wouldn't have to place them in the trash compactor. Splendid. I feel full of fuzzy warms already. "You mean he loves me sooooo muuuuuuch that he'll burn me forever if I don't grovel at his feet and stroke his ego? Sign me up!" If that doesn't teach you that god thinks life is disposable, nothing will. He killed his kid (or, if you prefer, he allowed his son to commit suicide [how do the Catholics explain THAT one!]) for crying out loud! And we're supposed to think he holds our lives as sacred? Seriously?
Third: To teach that evolution is nothing more than a "guess" does a serious disservice to the science community, which has proven the usefulness of evolutionary sciences in the fields of biology and medicine to provide life-saving medications and treatments. Not only has evolutionary theory kept us thriving for the last hundred years (the turning point being the polio vaccine, in my opinion), it has actually allowed humanity to be a much greater moral species--it has allowed us, using our brains and our senses, to find new ways to help one another, to save one another, to make one another's lives better! Not just to survive, but to thrive! Where people use to just sit and pray and light candles, they can now be proactive and get medicine and therapy built on the very evolutionary sciences that fundamentalists are scoffing at! Where people use to blame god's wrath or anger, we can now prevent certain conditions, heal wounds, and even bring back from death those very same people that, just even fifty years ago, would have been proclaimed as having been "called home to heaven." And people thank god? Thank a scientist! Thank a doctor, a pharmacologist, a university professor, an inquisitive mind! Thank Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and a host of others disregarded, ridiculed, and sometimes banned and killed by the church for "witchcraft" and "blaspheme." These are the people, the pioneers, of today's life-saving medicines. (And if you think these forefathers to modern scientists are unrelated to this discussion, you are worse off than I even considered!)
When it comes right down to it, however, this is really a moot point, as science never has, and possibly never will, speak to the existence of imaginary beings outside of our realms of inquiry. Believe it or not, the purpose of science is not to "attack" Christianity any more than it's purpose is to prove that jelly is, in fact, butter. The purpose of science is to ask questions, provide answers, and then keep hammering and hammering and hammering at those answers. This is the very truth of the scientific method. To continually seek new data, see how it fits into what is previously known, and change what was thought to be known based on what is now known. Science is not static (much to the chagrin of many a fundie), as they are constantly revising and updating and finding new information. Every year, in fact, there are huge arguments within the scientific community as notions are challenged, ideas are placed on the table, new data is verified, tested, and re-examined by anyone who is anyone. It is because of this method, this very morally justifiable method, that most people are even around to argue the silliness of creationism as there are today. If not for the scientific method, 90 percent of us wouldn't be here today, including myself, because we all would have sat around, staring at each other, thinking god was angry and not being able to do anything about it except more staring and praying.
Believe what you wish--science ultimately doesn't care, mostly because what you believe has little to do with anything outside of your own head. But don't you dare claim that what you believe is justifiable as an alternative to facts. Because it isn't.
Ultimately, creationism (most fundamentalist positions, actually) is very self-serving and ultimately self-defeating. The more they try to "prove" creationism by cutting out everything that doesn't fit, and then claiming that left over 1 percent is "evidence," will eventually lead to (hopefully) the eye-opening reality check for the fairy tale that it is. What's truly sad is so many hold dogma and doctrine in much higher regard than their own world and lives, and so many of them (fundies) will continue to scream, stomp their feet, and demand that they, and only they, can have the answer because of an old Hebrew text told by word of mouth for thousands of years before finally being put on paper, during captivity by the Babylonian Empire, to be read for thousands more.
To summarize: To deny and prevent the use of the evolutionary sciences will harm humanity as a whole, not only knowledge-wise, but in the very scary realm of disease, pestilence, and death--a very immoral position which places humanity in jeopardy from future problems and issues relating to virus's, bacterium, and genetically destructive mutations. Therefore, if we reduce the ability of sciences to cure, prevent, or treat human causes of suffering over "theologically important" views, an immoral and deadly position has been staked. Ergo, to support evolutionary facts and discoveries, and opposing false sciences based on theological criteria, is the right and moral thing to do.
To quote a pretty well-known Latin proverb, "Unless what we do is useful, glory is vain." Indeed, creationism holds nothing useful, not even to Christians. It will only continue to erode the very "rock solid" foundation they claim to stand on. And while many modern Christians have indeed realized that science is not a threat to their belief (and in fact, many have revised their interpretations of scripture so that they are in fact quite complimentary), whenever something is viewed as "unchanging," it will always get left behind.
And until fundamentalists realize that evolutionary sciences aren't a life philosophy, and are in fact actual truths and laws, the sooner they can give up wasting time fighting it and spend more time loving their neighbors and worshiping their god(s). Anything more would be glory for glories sake, and vanity of the highest order. Anything less would be immoral.
.JPG)
