2006-06-18
2006-03-03
Verbal Tradition over time.
In response to the comments I received on my previous "Blog This" post, I offer this:
Ask someone their recollection of a familiar unforgettable newsworthy story about something that happened thirty years ago. Have them tell the story to you with as many details as they can muster. Now, run out and tell a friend about this story that happened thirty years ago as related by your friend. Have that person spread this message verbally. Now, wait ten more years. Keep telling the story. Try to find your friend again to repeat this story to you now. You told them at the outset that you would ask about this story again. Compare how the story varies from the original account (that is to your memory of the original account.)
Finally, go back and check the actual news accounts of this story as it appeared in newsprint when it happened. Compare what you remember being told, what your friend recounted to you ten years later and then, ask the original person again to tell you the story again and compare that to the original account when it happened. When I say "as it appeared in newsprint", that might beg the question, "which version." Take a look at any news account of unfolding stories and you will find that facts are wrong from the outset. Then, over time, perhaps corrections are printed - but often times, the readers of the initial story do not ever find out the "final" story. You might get a thorough recount of a big news event on the anniversary of the event, which we would hope would have the advantage of time and all the dust settling.
When comparing the verbal account the first person to the newsprint story, you will find it varies from the original in some respects. Memories fade over time and they lose details or are embellished a bit to make them seem more interesting - intentionally and unintentionally. It is human nature and how the brain works and forgets.
Now, take a look at your average bible. None of the authors are 100% authenticated. The bible is made up of translated stories from a time when religion was an entirely verbal tradition, told from generation to generation. At some point, they decided to write it down. And it isn't one story, it is 67 some stories or books. Each one with its various translations and variations.
I know, my little example of some story recounted thirty years later, then comparing it to a news account at the time is very simplistic. With a religion, the adherants would likely be taught the religion constantly over time and likely, the story would be ingrained into the brain so much that variations might be less than in my example. Rituals and such reinforce the meaning. But, the basic problem of human interpretation and ongoing alteration of long told stories is a fact. Just think how a local church is run today. They may have great variation from a congregation of the same denomination across town. Think about all the different and disparate brands of Protestant Christianity. These are an outgrowth of the interpretation of the meaning of the bible and of different doctrines being adopted. Maybe that is to simple of an explanation, but you get the point.
So, the recording of what happened to Jesus 2,000 years ago, written by unauthenticated writers at various times thirty to 100 years after his death, and then the whole "official" bible being voted on by a group of supposed wise individuals even later than that; then further changes to the text in the translations from the original languages undoubtedly takes its toll on the whole process.
This isn't to say that what is written isn't the basic essence of what people came up with long ago, but it does point to the fact that claims of people speaking to god or to the prophets are dubious at best. Think about my little example of a news account, then wrap your mind around the story of Jesus' crucifixion, and realize it wasn't put into it's current form for at least 30 YEARS after his death. And with accounts of resurrections and crucifixions being commonplace in that era, who's to say that the jesus story is not just a convenient compilation or mashing together of what the "church" wants you to believe? From what I understand, there were many different brands of religions that spawned around the time of and after Jesus' time. There was a concerted effort to quash all of these disparate religions that varied with pieces of Judaism, Paganism and what became Christian doctrines into one cohesive story, which became the "New" testament.
If I pick up a book written in 1920 by a particular author, I can look to many other sources to check the validity of the book's claims. What was the author's reputation? Was he a good fact checker? Did he have the wherewithal to write on the subject his book covers? All of these things can be scrutinized when we know who the author is. It doesn't guarantee that the author is authentic or that his story is true, but at least there is no hiding who wrote the book.
With the entire bible, we just don't know who wrote it. Yes, there are claims, but those claims are just that. Basically heresay. Not authenticatable. The first four books of the Christian bible are similar in their stories, known as the Gospels. So what. Repeating the same lie or story isn't really that hard.
And, if we have an active god present in our lives, then why does he not speak to great people today and why isn't the bible being added to? What was so special about the time of 2,000 years ago that privileged them to the have talks with God or events so great that they warranted all that is written at the time? God just seems to have gone to sleep on the official word, right? Couldn't a real author write another god inspired book for the bible, in modern times? No. That would mean acceptance by churches, both Catholic and Protestant, and it would open the whole thing up to scrutiny. Who would have the authority to write such a thing? With the way and when the bible was constructed, it makes it somewhat immune to current scrutiny (at least by believers of the faith, that is.)
So - go ahead, tell your kids a story over and over. And see how it is told to their kids and then their kids. Then go back and compare the original story (locked away from viewing) - and see what you get. My bet is variation.
Ask someone their recollection of a familiar unforgettable newsworthy story about something that happened thirty years ago. Have them tell the story to you with as many details as they can muster. Now, run out and tell a friend about this story that happened thirty years ago as related by your friend. Have that person spread this message verbally. Now, wait ten more years. Keep telling the story. Try to find your friend again to repeat this story to you now. You told them at the outset that you would ask about this story again. Compare how the story varies from the original account (that is to your memory of the original account.)
Finally, go back and check the actual news accounts of this story as it appeared in newsprint when it happened. Compare what you remember being told, what your friend recounted to you ten years later and then, ask the original person again to tell you the story again and compare that to the original account when it happened. When I say "as it appeared in newsprint", that might beg the question, "which version." Take a look at any news account of unfolding stories and you will find that facts are wrong from the outset. Then, over time, perhaps corrections are printed - but often times, the readers of the initial story do not ever find out the "final" story. You might get a thorough recount of a big news event on the anniversary of the event, which we would hope would have the advantage of time and all the dust settling.
When comparing the verbal account the first person to the newsprint story, you will find it varies from the original in some respects. Memories fade over time and they lose details or are embellished a bit to make them seem more interesting - intentionally and unintentionally. It is human nature and how the brain works and forgets.
Now, take a look at your average bible. None of the authors are 100% authenticated. The bible is made up of translated stories from a time when religion was an entirely verbal tradition, told from generation to generation. At some point, they decided to write it down. And it isn't one story, it is 67 some stories or books. Each one with its various translations and variations.
I know, my little example of some story recounted thirty years later, then comparing it to a news account at the time is very simplistic. With a religion, the adherants would likely be taught the religion constantly over time and likely, the story would be ingrained into the brain so much that variations might be less than in my example. Rituals and such reinforce the meaning. But, the basic problem of human interpretation and ongoing alteration of long told stories is a fact. Just think how a local church is run today. They may have great variation from a congregation of the same denomination across town. Think about all the different and disparate brands of Protestant Christianity. These are an outgrowth of the interpretation of the meaning of the bible and of different doctrines being adopted. Maybe that is to simple of an explanation, but you get the point.
So, the recording of what happened to Jesus 2,000 years ago, written by unauthenticated writers at various times thirty to 100 years after his death, and then the whole "official" bible being voted on by a group of supposed wise individuals even later than that; then further changes to the text in the translations from the original languages undoubtedly takes its toll on the whole process.
This isn't to say that what is written isn't the basic essence of what people came up with long ago, but it does point to the fact that claims of people speaking to god or to the prophets are dubious at best. Think about my little example of a news account, then wrap your mind around the story of Jesus' crucifixion, and realize it wasn't put into it's current form for at least 30 YEARS after his death. And with accounts of resurrections and crucifixions being commonplace in that era, who's to say that the jesus story is not just a convenient compilation or mashing together of what the "church" wants you to believe? From what I understand, there were many different brands of religions that spawned around the time of and after Jesus' time. There was a concerted effort to quash all of these disparate religions that varied with pieces of Judaism, Paganism and what became Christian doctrines into one cohesive story, which became the "New" testament.
If I pick up a book written in 1920 by a particular author, I can look to many other sources to check the validity of the book's claims. What was the author's reputation? Was he a good fact checker? Did he have the wherewithal to write on the subject his book covers? All of these things can be scrutinized when we know who the author is. It doesn't guarantee that the author is authentic or that his story is true, but at least there is no hiding who wrote the book.
With the entire bible, we just don't know who wrote it. Yes, there are claims, but those claims are just that. Basically heresay. Not authenticatable. The first four books of the Christian bible are similar in their stories, known as the Gospels. So what. Repeating the same lie or story isn't really that hard.
And, if we have an active god present in our lives, then why does he not speak to great people today and why isn't the bible being added to? What was so special about the time of 2,000 years ago that privileged them to the have talks with God or events so great that they warranted all that is written at the time? God just seems to have gone to sleep on the official word, right? Couldn't a real author write another god inspired book for the bible, in modern times? No. That would mean acceptance by churches, both Catholic and Protestant, and it would open the whole thing up to scrutiny. Who would have the authority to write such a thing? With the way and when the bible was constructed, it makes it somewhat immune to current scrutiny (at least by believers of the faith, that is.)
So - go ahead, tell your kids a story over and over. And see how it is told to their kids and then their kids. Then go back and compare the original story (locked away from viewing) - and see what you get. My bet is variation.
2006-02-28
Continental Drift
Continental Drift: "No other religion lays on the guilt trip quite like Christianity. How? Christianity teaches that:
1. We are all born sinners.
2. Some guy named Jesus died for our sins.
3. We must accept this Jesus as our personal savior.
4. The penalty for not accepting this Jesus is eternal damnation.
5. We are all responsible for the crucifixion of this Jesus.
For two thousand years, this wicked and debased teaching has been chipping away at human happiness and dignity. For two thousand years, Christianity has had the chance to create a compassionate, enlightened society and has failed miserably. Christians have murdered millions, destroyed unique cultures that resisted its criminal missionaries, and are now busy, along with their Islamic brethren, destroying the earth’s fragile ecosystems. Cast Jesus Christ out of your life forever!!!! All he has a key to is the shit house. Stand up as a free and proud people and create a truly enlightened society without dogma, shame, and weakness. Dare to believe in the basic goodness of human beings, not their basic “sinfulness.“"
1. We are all born sinners.
2. Some guy named Jesus died for our sins.
3. We must accept this Jesus as our personal savior.
4. The penalty for not accepting this Jesus is eternal damnation.
5. We are all responsible for the crucifixion of this Jesus.
For two thousand years, this wicked and debased teaching has been chipping away at human happiness and dignity. For two thousand years, Christianity has had the chance to create a compassionate, enlightened society and has failed miserably. Christians have murdered millions, destroyed unique cultures that resisted its criminal missionaries, and are now busy, along with their Islamic brethren, destroying the earth’s fragile ecosystems. Cast Jesus Christ out of your life forever!!!! All he has a key to is the shit house. Stand up as a free and proud people and create a truly enlightened society without dogma, shame, and weakness. Dare to believe in the basic goodness of human beings, not their basic “sinfulness.“"
2006-02-21
Terry Bradshaw
While watching the NFL Network, they were doing a show about Football & Religion. It was interesting.
Kudos to Terry Bradshaw, telling us how he doesn't like the whole invocation of God and personal religion displays during games - the type where the players praise the lord or jesus after a touchdown or good play. He asked why they don't do the same thing when they don't win or make a bad play. Good point Terry. See my post: "Miracles" a couple of posts ago for my same analogy about 12 of 13 miners dying. God got the credit for one saved, but doesn't get the credit for the twelve who died. Why not?
Mike Holmgren asked his players to do their little religion schtick back at the hotel, not at the stadium. I guess they were gathering together just before the game at the stadium and some of the players would be left out due to not wanting to participate or whatever reason. Instead of just banning it, he came up with the good solution to just have them hold their little prayer service back at the hotel. That way, the "team" would not be divided just before the game.
Kudos to Terry Bradshaw, telling us how he doesn't like the whole invocation of God and personal religion displays during games - the type where the players praise the lord or jesus after a touchdown or good play. He asked why they don't do the same thing when they don't win or make a bad play. Good point Terry. See my post: "Miracles" a couple of posts ago for my same analogy about 12 of 13 miners dying. God got the credit for one saved, but doesn't get the credit for the twelve who died. Why not?
Mike Holmgren asked his players to do their little religion schtick back at the hotel, not at the stadium. I guess they were gathering together just before the game at the stadium and some of the players would be left out due to not wanting to participate or whatever reason. Instead of just banning it, he came up with the good solution to just have them hold their little prayer service back at the hotel. That way, the "team" would not be divided just before the game.
2006-01-21
Anti-gay group to protest at soldier's funeral
A story from the paper this morning:
This is another shining example of what religion, and this brand of Christianity does to foster this idea that God hands out punishment for broad sweeping reasons. And of course, the whole connection is drummed up by irrational people using the same sad logic they did centuries ago to "connect the dots" between tragic events and the "hand of God."
If a God exists that does dole out punishment in the way these lunatics describe, then he isn't my god. Some innocent soldier dies because America is pro-gay? This is fairy tale stuff again. This is the whole problem with religion in general. People latch onto aspects of it and twist and turn it to promote their own agenda. It really disgraces the religion. The Baptists of the country should denounce the actions of this church. But they won't, because they want to tell everyone else how to live and how to be right according to them.
What is it with people who think that they can tell me or anyone else how to live. Gay people are pretty much the same as straight people. I have read statistics that show they don't commit crimes any more and perhaps even less than their straight counterparts.
The sad part is that this group is going to ruin this family's time to mourn the loss of their son.
The reason people are dying in Iraq is not a result of gay people in this country. It is a result of the power hungry in Washington. Those who think they can run the whole world without cause and effect and who had no plan how to manage the situation once the brutal dictator was out of power. In other words - the actions of a few men in charge caused the death of that soldier in Iraq. NOT GAYS or a GAY FRIENDLY society in the U.S.!!
Get a grip and go home Westboro Baptist Church. Get out of my town, my life and the lives of others. You and Pat Robertson should shut up and preach to your minions and dolts who believe the drivel you espouse.
Anti-gay group to protest at soldier's funeral: "Westboro claims to have held more than 22,000 anti-gay demonstrations since 1991. But in the past year it has tried to connect its anti-gay rhetoric to the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, holding protests at more than 20 soldier funerals across the country.
Shirley Phelps-Roper, the daughter of Westboro pastor Fred Phelps, said the group had already planned to be in Tampa this weekend for a protest of Gay Straight Alliance groups there.
'And then here came this opportunity to help the people of Sarasota connect the dots, and they certainly deserve that opportunity,' Phelps-Roper said. 'We're going to remind them that there is a God and a heaven and a hell and a day of choice.'
Phelps-Roper said America is 'feeling the sword of God' because it is pro-gay. A disapproving God 'has become America's terrorist' and is sending soldiers home in body bags as proof, Phelps-Roper said."
This is another shining example of what religion, and this brand of Christianity does to foster this idea that God hands out punishment for broad sweeping reasons. And of course, the whole connection is drummed up by irrational people using the same sad logic they did centuries ago to "connect the dots" between tragic events and the "hand of God."
If a God exists that does dole out punishment in the way these lunatics describe, then he isn't my god. Some innocent soldier dies because America is pro-gay? This is fairy tale stuff again. This is the whole problem with religion in general. People latch onto aspects of it and twist and turn it to promote their own agenda. It really disgraces the religion. The Baptists of the country should denounce the actions of this church. But they won't, because they want to tell everyone else how to live and how to be right according to them.
What is it with people who think that they can tell me or anyone else how to live. Gay people are pretty much the same as straight people. I have read statistics that show they don't commit crimes any more and perhaps even less than their straight counterparts.
The sad part is that this group is going to ruin this family's time to mourn the loss of their son.
The reason people are dying in Iraq is not a result of gay people in this country. It is a result of the power hungry in Washington. Those who think they can run the whole world without cause and effect and who had no plan how to manage the situation once the brutal dictator was out of power. In other words - the actions of a few men in charge caused the death of that soldier in Iraq. NOT GAYS or a GAY FRIENDLY society in the U.S.!!
Get a grip and go home Westboro Baptist Church. Get out of my town, my life and the lives of others. You and Pat Robertson should shut up and preach to your minions and dolts who believe the drivel you espouse.
2006-01-04
Miracles
Another example of supposed "miracles" happening today as I opened my morning newspaper with the incorrect story regarding all the miners being found alive. Unfortunate turn of events. A terrible accident, which likely could have been avoided.
On the drive home last night, I was listening to CNN (on XM radio), and I heard the announcer talk about hoping for a "miracle" in the situation. They did an analysis of possible causes and the unlikelihood that anyone survived the explosion and resulting carbon monoxide and lack of breathable air.
Miracle invokes religion and God. Right?
from: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=50884&dict=CALD
miracle
noun [C]
an unusual and mysterious event that is thought to have been caused by a god, or any very surprising and unexpected event.
Or from Oxford
I really cringed at this use of miracle to describe a fortunate happening. The question that crossed my mind is why we don't seem to attribute the 12 of 13 who died to the opposite of miracle and make God responsible for that too. If God is in charge, then if he performs a "miracle" to save them, then why can't he be accused of "murder" or maybe a less severe term like "negligent disregard for their lives?."
Why does God get off the hook for death, but get all the credit for someone surviving against the odds?
Perhaps the users of such a word are simply saying "outrageously lucky" or "incredibly they survived this ordeal" when they use the word miracle, but I don't think so. When I hear "miracle", then it suggests the supernatural was involved.
Something to think about.
God Scorecard on this tragedy:
1 miracle 11 deaths (and many very distraught, grieving families)
Seems God is behind in this one. See me when an asteroid pummels into earth and wipes out half the population. Oh, that's right, the all loving, all caring, all good God acts in mysterious ways and we probably did something to bring it on. Just talk to Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.
(A more reasonable explanation is that the universe is just humming along with no active God who watches over us a protects us, but instead we are just carbon life forms and randomly we may perish tomorrow or 2,000 years from now, but it is not attributable to anything except those random forces. That or it's God's fault? You can't have it both ways. Either God creates all life and takes it away, or he doesn't do either. I know, the Christians will talk about eternal life if I am saved and those miners are in a better place, away from the hardship that is life (at times) and all the doubts and questioning, etc. But all that is just conjecture. We really don't know - why - because NOBODY really KNOWS!)
On the drive home last night, I was listening to CNN (on XM radio), and I heard the announcer talk about hoping for a "miracle" in the situation. They did an analysis of possible causes and the unlikelihood that anyone survived the explosion and resulting carbon monoxide and lack of breathable air.
Miracle invokes religion and God. Right?
from: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=50884&dict=CALD
miracle
noun [C]
an unusual and mysterious event that is thought to have been caused by a god, or any very surprising and unexpected event.
Or from Oxford
 |
| |
miracle
• noun 1 an extraordinary and welcome event attributed to a divine agency. 2 a remarkable and very welcome occurrence. 3 an outstanding example, specimen, or achievement. — ORIGIN Latin miraculum ‘object of wonder’. |
I really cringed at this use of miracle to describe a fortunate happening. The question that crossed my mind is why we don't seem to attribute the 12 of 13 who died to the opposite of miracle and make God responsible for that too. If God is in charge, then if he performs a "miracle" to save them, then why can't he be accused of "murder" or maybe a less severe term like "negligent disregard for their lives?."
Why does God get off the hook for death, but get all the credit for someone surviving against the odds?
Perhaps the users of such a word are simply saying "outrageously lucky" or "incredibly they survived this ordeal" when they use the word miracle, but I don't think so. When I hear "miracle", then it suggests the supernatural was involved.
Something to think about.
God Scorecard on this tragedy:
1 miracle 11 deaths (and many very distraught, grieving families)
Seems God is behind in this one. See me when an asteroid pummels into earth and wipes out half the population. Oh, that's right, the all loving, all caring, all good God acts in mysterious ways and we probably did something to bring it on. Just talk to Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.
(A more reasonable explanation is that the universe is just humming along with no active God who watches over us a protects us, but instead we are just carbon life forms and randomly we may perish tomorrow or 2,000 years from now, but it is not attributable to anything except those random forces. That or it's God's fault? You can't have it both ways. Either God creates all life and takes it away, or he doesn't do either. I know, the Christians will talk about eternal life if I am saved and those miners are in a better place, away from the hardship that is life (at times) and all the doubts and questioning, etc. But all that is just conjecture. We really don't know - why - because NOBODY really KNOWS!)
2005-12-28
My Atheism, Charles Hanson
I often have a hard time putting succinctly my lack of belief - but this excerpt really hits on many good points... points I entirely agree with.
My Atheism, Charles Hanson: "The turning point for me was Ludovic Kennedy's book ' All in the Mind.'
This demonstrated to me how for so long we humans have deceived ourselves in trying to seek answers for our existence, and pre-occupied ourselves with the irrationality, illogicality, idealism, trivialities and the nonsense of religion. I arrived at conclusions about religion whose only adequate response was one of atheism. I now regard all religion in the same way as I regard supernaturalism, clairvoyance, tarot cards and tea leaf reading which are all manifestations of the search for meaning to our being, there is a tendency to search for and give meaning to all manner of things that affect our everyday existence, including abstractions. I would argue that all of this nonsense is born out of ignorance and is a 'left over' from the days when things 'not understood* were deemed to be acts of God. I began to see the religion for what it is often no more than an emotional crutch for those incapable of overcoming human adversity. For others an escapism, whilst for the most ludicrous - a second chance in some after-life.
Human reason persuades me that there is nothing mysterious about organised religion, the mysteries I would suggest lies in the human potential for nonsense. I am often challenged about my stance and am often confronted with the notion that there must be a reason for our existence. That there must be 'something* else apart from what we know. It is interesting that those who push this view have no idea themselves what this 'something' is. Instead, why not make the most of what we do know, and instead of the exertions that the religious put into the prospect of their own soul, try instead to improve the quality of life in the here and now and in so doing create a better world, instead of the bloodshed and conflicts that are so often instigated by religious differences."
2005-12-09
Evolutionblog
On a discussion of a new college student coming from a religious upbringing and school with no exposure to the theory of evolution, this discussion is spot on:
Read the entire entry: 12/08/05 "Have They Tried Open-Mindedness?"
Evolutionblog:
Not to say that ultimately deciding that your belief is the right one is wrong, but I just don't understand people who just buy the Christian story lock stock and barrel. I don't understand people who don't want to explore, not only in college, but later into life - and to keep exploring.
Although it is a tendancy to get set in your ways as you grow older (and sometimes at a very young age, if you are predisposed to that), I hope I never just settle into one belief. Although I am an Atheist, I have my doubts and don't think I know anything (hence the name of the blog) about this crazy concept of god. I will acknowledge my doubts, but I am fairly certain that the Christian god and story is NOT an accurate one. Revealed religion doesn't cut it for me. A natural god I might buy, but a packaged one written about by unknown authors and decided upon by a group of MEN over a thousand years ago - no thank you.
Read the entire entry: 12/08/05 "Have They Tried Open-Mindedness?"
Evolutionblog:
"They have to understand that it is not the professor's job to coddle them when they claim to believe things that are patently untrue.
That last sentence sure is creepy. Learning things that challenge your preconceived notions is, for many people, something to be endured, not something to benefit from. I can't imagine what it's like to be that confident that, as a teenager, you have successfully resolved the fundamental mysteries of existence. I don't care if Mr. Scott learns to accept evolution. But I do hope he will learn to be a bit more open-minded, and a bit more willing to accept that things he heard in high school should be the beginning, not the end, of his education."
Not to say that ultimately deciding that your belief is the right one is wrong, but I just don't understand people who just buy the Christian story lock stock and barrel. I don't understand people who don't want to explore, not only in college, but later into life - and to keep exploring.
Although it is a tendancy to get set in your ways as you grow older (and sometimes at a very young age, if you are predisposed to that), I hope I never just settle into one belief. Although I am an Atheist, I have my doubts and don't think I know anything (hence the name of the blog) about this crazy concept of god. I will acknowledge my doubts, but I am fairly certain that the Christian god and story is NOT an accurate one. Revealed religion doesn't cut it for me. A natural god I might buy, but a packaged one written about by unknown authors and decided upon by a group of MEN over a thousand years ago - no thank you.
2005-12-07
Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays vs. Happy Hannukah vs. Happy Kwanza
All the hullabaloo (i love that word) about the use of Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas - from the retail industry to the cards the White House sends out - it is quite a stupid hullabaloo.
What occurred to me the other day after giving into the whole holiday ritual and suffering through the crowds at the local Target store was how stupid this whole thing is. We run around all crazy to buy gifts for people, while all the while we could really do something generous for the season and help the hungry by providing those hundred's of dollars to a homeless shelter or a food kitchen. Perhaps we could provide housing or education to the less fortunate of society. Perhaps we could just keep our money for the future - invest it and be able to provide for our children.
But, would Bill O'Reilly really advocate such a move at Christmas time? Would he suggest loving thy brother or as he has done to advocate bringing horror to those who use the word holiday instead of Christmas in their ads or literature. Media Matters - O'Reilly promised to "bring horror" to alleged "anti-Christian forces" who oppose Christmas: "I'm gonna use all the power that I have on radio and television to bring horror into the world of people who are trying to do that. "
Give me a break Bill. If you were espousing returning to the real roots of Christianity and what it stands for and not the whoreish commercialization of the holiday, then you would have some credibility. Isn't it unChristianlike to promote "Horror" onto anyone? And doesn't our country stand at the forefront of freedom of expression?
So the Jews and Muslims of this country mean nothing. I have seen statistics that state that 96% of people "celebrate" Christmas in this country. That may be true, but I doubt that even 50% truly celebrate it for its religious meaning. If they did, they wouldn't resort to the hours of shopping, the stress and the stupidity that this holiday has become.
Happy holidays or Seson's Greetings acknowledges all faiths or no faith at all. Call a Christmas tree what it is, I agree, even if the custom was adopted from Pagan rituals. I personally celebrate the season and the fact that we move from autumn to winter in December and that spring is just around the corner. A true celebration of the new life of spring. But, say Merry Christmas if that suits you - or say Happy Hannukah or say Happy Ramadan or whatever. But don't include me in your witch hunt Mr. Reilly, to expose and "bring horror" to those who think differently from you - those who think that is. Those who want all of us to be part of this diverse country. But as usual, right wing blowhards don't usually understand things like that.
What occurred to me the other day after giving into the whole holiday ritual and suffering through the crowds at the local Target store was how stupid this whole thing is. We run around all crazy to buy gifts for people, while all the while we could really do something generous for the season and help the hungry by providing those hundred's of dollars to a homeless shelter or a food kitchen. Perhaps we could provide housing or education to the less fortunate of society. Perhaps we could just keep our money for the future - invest it and be able to provide for our children.
But, would Bill O'Reilly really advocate such a move at Christmas time? Would he suggest loving thy brother or as he has done to advocate bringing horror to those who use the word holiday instead of Christmas in their ads or literature. Media Matters - O'Reilly promised to "bring horror" to alleged "anti-Christian forces" who oppose Christmas: "I'm gonna use all the power that I have on radio and television to bring horror into the world of people who are trying to do that. "
Give me a break Bill. If you were espousing returning to the real roots of Christianity and what it stands for and not the whoreish commercialization of the holiday, then you would have some credibility. Isn't it unChristianlike to promote "Horror" onto anyone? And doesn't our country stand at the forefront of freedom of expression?
So the Jews and Muslims of this country mean nothing. I have seen statistics that state that 96% of people "celebrate" Christmas in this country. That may be true, but I doubt that even 50% truly celebrate it for its religious meaning. If they did, they wouldn't resort to the hours of shopping, the stress and the stupidity that this holiday has become.
Happy holidays or Seson's Greetings acknowledges all faiths or no faith at all. Call a Christmas tree what it is, I agree, even if the custom was adopted from Pagan rituals. I personally celebrate the season and the fact that we move from autumn to winter in December and that spring is just around the corner. A true celebration of the new life of spring. But, say Merry Christmas if that suits you - or say Happy Hannukah or say Happy Ramadan or whatever. But don't include me in your witch hunt Mr. Reilly, to expose and "bring horror" to those who think differently from you - those who think that is. Those who want all of us to be part of this diverse country. But as usual, right wing blowhards don't usually understand things like that.
Capital Punishment
I am certain I have written about capital punishment before - but Blogger deleted the prior incarnation of this blog. Regardless, it is always a good idea to revisit the subject to reflect on subtle changes in my thinking on the subject.
I am against capital punishment. It is murder - even if for a reason or to rectify another wrong, it is still murder. Just because the State says putting someone to death is just punishment, it is still murder.
That being said, I have to say that my belief that it is wrong has been tested lately. The Carlie Bruscia case is the case we are currently considering. I feel that the perpetrator, Joseph P. Smith, who was convicted of first degree murder, rape, kidnapping, etc. last month is the worst kind of human being there is. I feel what sealed his fate was his own words, told to his brother and mother; his written word to his brother (in code) and since his incarceration, to another inmate telling that inmate how to pummel some other inmate properly. This was great insight into the mind of a very disturbed individual. He is likely unrepentant and I bet his only regret is getting caught.
Again, this case, hitting so close to home, has severely tested my steadfast opposition to the death penalty. If anyone deserves this punishment, it is him.
My philosophy of being against the death penalty is based on my lack of belief in the afterlife, heaven, hell and all that fairy tale stuff many people believe. I think that there isn't anything after death. It is just nothingness, just like it was before you were born. Nothing. So, my usual argument is that the death penalty is just an easy way out. I think a much harsher penalty on this earth for this life is "LIFE IN PRISON" without the possibility of parole. It is a death sentence of a sort: No freedom, no real enjoyment to be a full living human being with the pleasures of life, nothing. Just confinement.
The confinement I am talking about is very restrictive. Not much human contact. A single cell with no amenities. Maybe paper and pencil, but not much else. No TV, no radio. NO human contact. Just confinement for thirty, forty years. No exercise plan, no education. A true death sentence. This, to me, is pure torture.
I am severely opposed to torture. But, for people like this animal, I would consider applying measured torture. Perhaps an occasional choking to the point of near unconciousness - just to give him a taste of the last moments of poor Carlie's life. Maybe an occasional anal probe to remind him what it must have been like for her. But, what would that make the perpetrators of that punishment no better than this creep.
The problem I see with this whole death penalty thinking is that we even go there. We as a society (the U.S.) should just not entertain it. But, it is part of the culture now. If the expected punishment was decades of isolation (till death) for these bastards, then we wouldn't be tempted to resort to exactly what we despise.
These criminals are the worst of the worst. And they deserve a harsh punishment, for sure. But an eye for an eye accomplishes little.
I am against capital punishment. It is murder - even if for a reason or to rectify another wrong, it is still murder. Just because the State says putting someone to death is just punishment, it is still murder.
That being said, I have to say that my belief that it is wrong has been tested lately. The Carlie Bruscia case is the case we are currently considering. I feel that the perpetrator, Joseph P. Smith, who was convicted of first degree murder, rape, kidnapping, etc. last month is the worst kind of human being there is. I feel what sealed his fate was his own words, told to his brother and mother; his written word to his brother (in code) and since his incarceration, to another inmate telling that inmate how to pummel some other inmate properly. This was great insight into the mind of a very disturbed individual. He is likely unrepentant and I bet his only regret is getting caught.
Again, this case, hitting so close to home, has severely tested my steadfast opposition to the death penalty. If anyone deserves this punishment, it is him.
My philosophy of being against the death penalty is based on my lack of belief in the afterlife, heaven, hell and all that fairy tale stuff many people believe. I think that there isn't anything after death. It is just nothingness, just like it was before you were born. Nothing. So, my usual argument is that the death penalty is just an easy way out. I think a much harsher penalty on this earth for this life is "LIFE IN PRISON" without the possibility of parole. It is a death sentence of a sort: No freedom, no real enjoyment to be a full living human being with the pleasures of life, nothing. Just confinement.
The confinement I am talking about is very restrictive. Not much human contact. A single cell with no amenities. Maybe paper and pencil, but not much else. No TV, no radio. NO human contact. Just confinement for thirty, forty years. No exercise plan, no education. A true death sentence. This, to me, is pure torture.
I am severely opposed to torture. But, for people like this animal, I would consider applying measured torture. Perhaps an occasional choking to the point of near unconciousness - just to give him a taste of the last moments of poor Carlie's life. Maybe an occasional anal probe to remind him what it must have been like for her. But, what would that make the perpetrators of that punishment no better than this creep.
The problem I see with this whole death penalty thinking is that we even go there. We as a society (the U.S.) should just not entertain it. But, it is part of the culture now. If the expected punishment was decades of isolation (till death) for these bastards, then we wouldn't be tempted to resort to exactly what we despise.
These criminals are the worst of the worst. And they deserve a harsh punishment, for sure. But an eye for an eye accomplishes little.
2005-11-20
Restoration III
Restored old template - for the most part. Found an old copy of the template - but it was before many link additions, but it gave me the name and such. So we are off to the races - 10 posts from about 100 and backing up every post via email. Life is good again.
2005-11-19
U.S. national mottos: History and constitutionality
With respect to the whole "In God We Trust" on all U.S. money:
U.S. national mottos: History and constitutionality: "Decades later, Theodore Roosevelt disapproved of the motto. In a letter to William Boldly on 1907-NOV-11, he wrote: 'My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements.'"
Sounds to me like a pretty level-headed approach. But with the things that are so ingrained, people think it is an affront to religion and their belief in God to suggest that the phrase does not belong on money. This argument isn't even from the very good separation of church and state argument. Although it doesn't specifically embrace or promote a particular religion, it does promote a belief and blurs the line between secular government and religion/god.
Okay - so what's wrong with professing what the overwhelming majority of people in the U.S. believe on our coinage anyway? So what if a few aclu types or atheists object? Well, it just isn't appropriate and I think Roosevelt has a good point. The government shouldn't speak for me about whether I believe in god or not. I am an American. What I believe is my business and if you want to cover all the basis and represent what I believe - then why isn't my motto on the coins and paper money? (E Pluribus Unum was good.)
U.S. national mottos: History and constitutionality: "Decades later, Theodore Roosevelt disapproved of the motto. In a letter to William Boldly on 1907-NOV-11, he wrote: 'My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements.'"
Sounds to me like a pretty level-headed approach. But with the things that are so ingrained, people think it is an affront to religion and their belief in God to suggest that the phrase does not belong on money. This argument isn't even from the very good separation of church and state argument. Although it doesn't specifically embrace or promote a particular religion, it does promote a belief and blurs the line between secular government and religion/god.
Okay - so what's wrong with professing what the overwhelming majority of people in the U.S. believe on our coinage anyway? So what if a few aclu types or atheists object? Well, it just isn't appropriate and I think Roosevelt has a good point. The government shouldn't speak for me about whether I believe in god or not. I am an American. What I believe is my business and if you want to cover all the basis and represent what I believe - then why isn't my motto on the coins and paper money? (E Pluribus Unum was good.)
Restored Content
Hopefully this is the last update on the status of the blog re-creation. I have now gotten all ten cached blog entries posted and some of the sidebar content restored. Still need to work on the overall look and do my regular backups of the template and such.
I am still really disappointed in Blogger on this whole deletion of my blog and no final response to my inquiry about actually checking the backups for copies - and referring them to the very cached pages to show that my previous blog of http://snobodyknows.blogspot.com did really exist.
But, such is life - trust me people - back up your blog templates and entries or better, buy a host to store your blog and even better, get your own domain. I will someday.
I am still really disappointed in Blogger on this whole deletion of my blog and no final response to my inquiry about actually checking the backups for copies - and referring them to the very cached pages to show that my previous blog of http://snobodyknows.blogspot.com did really exist.
But, such is life - trust me people - back up your blog templates and entries or better, buy a host to store your blog and even better, get your own domain. I will someday.
2005-11-17
Recreation/Resurrection
Since blogger deleted my original "nobody knows" blog, I have decided to start a new one with the same name, but with the email each post to myself turned on. In this way, perhaps the next time they decide to do something stupid and not admit it, i can then recover completely.
Fortunately for me, I did find two cached pages, one on google and one on yahoo - both from different dates - so I have about ten posts. I will get to reposting these real soon. I think I have part of my old template around.
I promise my next "real" post will be more interesting (at least to me anyway)!
Come to think of it - I think this proves that resurrections do actually happen. There goes all my arguments against the fantasy!
Fortunately for me, I did find two cached pages, one on google and one on yahoo - both from different dates - so I have about ten posts. I will get to reposting these real soon. I think I have part of my old template around.
I promise my next "real" post will be more interesting (at least to me anyway)!
Come to think of it - I think this proves that resurrections do actually happen. There goes all my arguments against the fantasy!
2005-10-03
Flood Insurance
Monday, October 03, 2005
Flood Insurance
The headline reads "Flood funds drying up fast, Federal program sliding into deficit." The National Flood Insurance program expects to be $20 Bil in the red b/c of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Many of the homeowners in N.O. were not insured. Estimates at 40-70%! Too early to say for sure. Regular homeowners insurance doesn't cover flooding.
There is a proposal in congress to cover the properties that were not insured.
My first reaction to this was - no way - if you don't take the initial step to be insured properly, then you bare part of the responsibility of the consequences. If you receive no money from your home being flooded, then perhaps you will move to a less flood prone area. We can't continue to promote living in risky areas.
But, then I thought - what about the responsibility of the government to either:
a.) build adequate levees to protect an under sea level city. or
b.) offer incentives to move from the area - if flooded once, maybe not, but twice - buy the property - bulldoze it, and provide funds to have the person relocate to higher ground. (think about it, rebuilding the home would cost perhaps $1,000's more than just giving the person enough to have a down payment on a new home, especially in the case of severe flooding where the house is a total loss.
They say that one percent of covered properties have cost the program 38 percent of the claims since 1978, because they are repeatedly flooded. This is ludicrous. As I mention above - there should be a limit to the payout on a property. Say if it floods more than once in so many years, then offer incentives to move.
But, government is part of the issue here. They must do whatever they can to mitigate a known problem. If an area constantly floods, then they need to make a plan to either prevent or mitigate future flooding, or get people out of the areas. If it is deemed too expensive to protect an area - then they need to work on a program to move the city or warn the residents that it is too expensive to fix the problem - so we need another solution. Sorry about your luck.
One suggestion in the story was to revise the FEMA "100-year flood plain" to include more areas and thus require flood insurance for those properties - and thus boost revenue for the flood program.
The key to flood insurance is its affordability. But, with major catastrophes, the premiums don't cover the losses - especially this year. They can't raise the premiums more than 10 percent in a year per law. This is good consumer protection.
But, we have to be realistic - if we want to live in flood prone areas, then we should have to pay whatever it costs. If you don't like paying it, then move to a different location that isn't flood prone.
The only real beef I have is the one percent representing 38 percent of the cost. Good money after bad. Short-sidedness. If I wreck my car too many times, then what does a private insurance company do? They cancel my policy or raise my rates to go along with my incident rate. Harsh, but if I am more of a risk, then I should pay more and/or modify my driving behavior. Same with my home - if it floods two, three or more times, then either I need to move, or the city/county/state/fed govt needs to condemn the property or fix the issue.
now here or no where 8:40 AM | (0) comments |
There is a proposal in congress to cover the properties that were not insured.
My first reaction to this was - no way - if you don't take the initial step to be insured properly, then you bare part of the responsibility of the consequences. If you receive no money from your home being flooded, then perhaps you will move to a less flood prone area. We can't continue to promote living in risky areas.
But, then I thought - what about the responsibility of the government to either:
a.) build adequate levees to protect an under sea level city. or
b.) offer incentives to move from the area - if flooded once, maybe not, but twice - buy the property - bulldoze it, and provide funds to have the person relocate to higher ground. (think about it, rebuilding the home would cost perhaps $1,000's more than just giving the person enough to have a down payment on a new home, especially in the case of severe flooding where the house is a total loss.
They say that one percent of covered properties have cost the program 38 percent of the claims since 1978, because they are repeatedly flooded. This is ludicrous. As I mention above - there should be a limit to the payout on a property. Say if it floods more than once in so many years, then offer incentives to move.
But, government is part of the issue here. They must do whatever they can to mitigate a known problem. If an area constantly floods, then they need to make a plan to either prevent or mitigate future flooding, or get people out of the areas. If it is deemed too expensive to protect an area - then they need to work on a program to move the city or warn the residents that it is too expensive to fix the problem - so we need another solution. Sorry about your luck.
One suggestion in the story was to revise the FEMA "100-year flood plain" to include more areas and thus require flood insurance for those properties - and thus boost revenue for the flood program.
The key to flood insurance is its affordability. But, with major catastrophes, the premiums don't cover the losses - especially this year. They can't raise the premiums more than 10 percent in a year per law. This is good consumer protection.
But, we have to be realistic - if we want to live in flood prone areas, then we should have to pay whatever it costs. If you don't like paying it, then move to a different location that isn't flood prone.
The only real beef I have is the one percent representing 38 percent of the cost. Good money after bad. Short-sidedness. If I wreck my car too many times, then what does a private insurance company do? They cancel my policy or raise my rates to go along with my incident rate. Harsh, but if I am more of a risk, then I should pay more and/or modify my driving behavior. Same with my home - if it floods two, three or more times, then either I need to move, or the city/county/state/fed govt needs to condemn the property or fix the issue.
2005-09-30
Suffering 2
Friday, September 30, 2005
Suffering 2
Logic. Explanation to why we just can't pin down this whole god thing range from what sounds like good reasoning to outright rationalization.
SO - most of what is professed by the believers doesn't make sense to me. It is incomprehensable. The concept of God doesn't make sense. None of my logic says - if this, then God. I just can't come to this conclusion, ever.
Miracles. They say it was miraculous that more people didn't die during Hurricane Rita. Why is it miraculous? If that is so miraculous, then what do they say about all the people who did die due to Katrina? They attribute that to nature or evil.
Why is it the positive is attributed to God and the negative to evil.
Isn't god the creator of all?
So, why do I beat myself up so hard with this question - constantly questioning my belief or lack thereof? I can barely contain myself talking to people about this issue. When I ask pointed questions - deep questions, most average people can't answer them. I don't claim to be some deep thinker - i can barely put together a cogent paragraph sometimes or keep my thoughts straight - but this isn't my psych session.
So - as I was saying - this whole question comes down to this: Abandoning reason. That is the way I figure it. But can I do that? Is that the path I want to take? It seems that reality is harsh. Death is death - the end - as my view - a simple view - called by some the easy way out. But I see it as the most logical view.
Look around you sometime. I look at the human form as I wander through the halls of work or at the grocery store - what I see is the marvelous differences in people - fat, skinny, out of proportion, sexy, ugly, insanely insatiable, average joes and joettes, you name it, we come in all shapes, sizes. What the average person would attribute this to is God and the wonder of life. I attribute it to the wonder of life and how amazing it is without the God part. Are we really that different though. I figure that life is such an impossibility - all the things in our universe point to the improbability of us coming into existence - but - the building blocks were here from the start - it just took a long time for the seeds to grow and evolve. I see evolution and the wild variations just in humans - the mind, the body, all of it. But, I don't conclude god or the god of the christian or jewish bible though. I value life above all else because I truly believe this is the one chance we have. We need to live in the here and now - not wait for some ever after that occurs after death. Unknown. Death isn't bad except for the unknown. I guess that is one big reason the masses gravitate toward the religion and the story of the afterlife - the promise of something better.
You see, I don't see this as a hell. Yes, it is tough sometimes - but we are the ones that can influence our experience on earth. I think one of the issue that hinders religion is that if people use that as an excuse to not improve in this lifetime - then it gives them a reason to procrastinate and not really make it a go this life. It is insideous. But - religion does make people do a lot of good things - but if I tell people I am a non-believer - I am looked at with disdain. Why does not believing what most people on earth believe make me some sort of deviant? Because religion also has built into it guilt, and the tendancy to label non-believers as heretics - it pre-judges people. Just because I don't believe in what I consider a fairy tale of god of the bible - doesn't mean I am any less human than a believer. Heck, the believers even call other god believers heretics if they believe in their particular brand of religion.
I don't have some grand notion that we should become non-believers - I see very clearly what the appeal of religion and god believing is.
1. Be part of a large group.
2. Never worry about the afterlife if you follow the rules and walk the walk.
3. Have that sense that god is watching out for you and helps you somehow.
It is all an illusion to me. And you know what - so what. A man/woman should not judged by his beliefs or words - but by his deeds. If he made a mistake, then he should be forgiven and allowed to make good on it if he shows he can really change - to apologize and fly straight - not forever condemned (except in heinous crimes - which there is no reason in my mind to forgive a rapist or murderer. They are screwed up and need to be locked away - the victim and families are the ones that need to do the coming to terms with it without letting it eat them alive.)
People take out selective parts of the bible to use to their current situation all the time. Do I expect a christian to be perfect - no - but don't preach to me without adhering to your beliefs. If you really are a christian - then behave like one as the bible says. If your religion says no sex before marriage, then you should live by that. if it says that you must starve yourself for days on end to get closer to god -then you should do it. Don't just take the parts you want - live it. That is what it is all about. And stop proseletizing the whole 3rd world and unsuspecting people. I know that is a major tenet - and it was a smart move by the founders - spread the word - increase your flocks.
I don't have a message to preach. Live and let live. But, do unto others...
So what is so different between me and the average religious person?
now here or no where 6:31 PM | (0) comments |
SO - most of what is professed by the believers doesn't make sense to me. It is incomprehensable. The concept of God doesn't make sense. None of my logic says - if this, then God. I just can't come to this conclusion, ever.
Miracles. They say it was miraculous that more people didn't die during Hurricane Rita. Why is it miraculous? If that is so miraculous, then what do they say about all the people who did die due to Katrina? They attribute that to nature or evil.
Why is it the positive is attributed to God and the negative to evil.
Isn't god the creator of all?
So, why do I beat myself up so hard with this question - constantly questioning my belief or lack thereof? I can barely contain myself talking to people about this issue. When I ask pointed questions - deep questions, most average people can't answer them. I don't claim to be some deep thinker - i can barely put together a cogent paragraph sometimes or keep my thoughts straight - but this isn't my psych session.
So - as I was saying - this whole question comes down to this: Abandoning reason. That is the way I figure it. But can I do that? Is that the path I want to take? It seems that reality is harsh. Death is death - the end - as my view - a simple view - called by some the easy way out. But I see it as the most logical view.
Look around you sometime. I look at the human form as I wander through the halls of work or at the grocery store - what I see is the marvelous differences in people - fat, skinny, out of proportion, sexy, ugly, insanely insatiable, average joes and joettes, you name it, we come in all shapes, sizes. What the average person would attribute this to is God and the wonder of life. I attribute it to the wonder of life and how amazing it is without the God part. Are we really that different though. I figure that life is such an impossibility - all the things in our universe point to the improbability of us coming into existence - but - the building blocks were here from the start - it just took a long time for the seeds to grow and evolve. I see evolution and the wild variations just in humans - the mind, the body, all of it. But, I don't conclude god or the god of the christian or jewish bible though. I value life above all else because I truly believe this is the one chance we have. We need to live in the here and now - not wait for some ever after that occurs after death. Unknown. Death isn't bad except for the unknown. I guess that is one big reason the masses gravitate toward the religion and the story of the afterlife - the promise of something better.
You see, I don't see this as a hell. Yes, it is tough sometimes - but we are the ones that can influence our experience on earth. I think one of the issue that hinders religion is that if people use that as an excuse to not improve in this lifetime - then it gives them a reason to procrastinate and not really make it a go this life. It is insideous. But - religion does make people do a lot of good things - but if I tell people I am a non-believer - I am looked at with disdain. Why does not believing what most people on earth believe make me some sort of deviant? Because religion also has built into it guilt, and the tendancy to label non-believers as heretics - it pre-judges people. Just because I don't believe in what I consider a fairy tale of god of the bible - doesn't mean I am any less human than a believer. Heck, the believers even call other god believers heretics if they believe in their particular brand of religion.
I don't have some grand notion that we should become non-believers - I see very clearly what the appeal of religion and god believing is.
1. Be part of a large group.
2. Never worry about the afterlife if you follow the rules and walk the walk.
3. Have that sense that god is watching out for you and helps you somehow.
It is all an illusion to me. And you know what - so what. A man/woman should not judged by his beliefs or words - but by his deeds. If he made a mistake, then he should be forgiven and allowed to make good on it if he shows he can really change - to apologize and fly straight - not forever condemned (except in heinous crimes - which there is no reason in my mind to forgive a rapist or murderer. They are screwed up and need to be locked away - the victim and families are the ones that need to do the coming to terms with it without letting it eat them alive.)
People take out selective parts of the bible to use to their current situation all the time. Do I expect a christian to be perfect - no - but don't preach to me without adhering to your beliefs. If you really are a christian - then behave like one as the bible says. If your religion says no sex before marriage, then you should live by that. if it says that you must starve yourself for days on end to get closer to god -then you should do it. Don't just take the parts you want - live it. That is what it is all about. And stop proseletizing the whole 3rd world and unsuspecting people. I know that is a major tenet - and it was a smart move by the founders - spread the word - increase your flocks.
I don't have a message to preach. Live and let live. But, do unto others...
So what is so different between me and the average religious person?
2005-09-26
Catholic News and Views
Monday, September 26, 2005
Catholic News and Views
Catholic News and Views: "Americans, believers or no, at this point are holding their breath and whispering a prayer for the people trying to evacuate the Texas and Louisianna coasts. 'How could God do this to us again?' I've heard people ask, even very religious people. Scientists are explaining to us the cycle of these more violent weather systems, and the factors that come together to make them happen. There seems to be a satisfactory enough explanation on a natural level that is that it doesn't seem necessary to blame God. Rather, we have the promise from God himself that no matter what befalls us from the powers of nature, he will be working through it nevertheless for our salvation. In other words, God's love is reliable because the storm is not stronger than God. Regardless of what category the Hurricane hits land as, God will work simultaneously in each person's life to bring good out of the evil. And in this case, I believe that God will be working simultaneously in and through each Americans' life to bring about some unexpected good for our country. It may not be more money, pleasure, or success. Those aren't things God considers very important. But it will be something on the lines of a greater awareness of the needs of each other, a more serious commitment to justice for the poor in our cities, a willingness to change our lifestyle because we see and know the people now who are in desperate need. They are in our house. God also will be working miracles that we'll find out about after. I was e-mailed this from a friend who is a Sacred Heart Brother: Sacred Heart Brothers, students survive hurricane in Mississippi By Larry Wahl Catholic News Service MOBILE, Ala. (CNS) -- One hundred fifty men,...."
Sooooo. I notice here that there is a selectiveness of what people attribute to god and what they don't. Nature, hurricane - that isn't god. It is nature. But, the "miracles" - those people who were lucky enough to survive in some odd way is the work of god. But, all those who died or were maimed or have nowhere to go now - why are those not also "non-miracles" of god's work?
I know - lessons can be learned from these things - that there are more important things in life than what Paris Hilton is up to or who she is screwing (or not screwing) - but I will repeat again: If god is responsible for saving a life, then he is also responsible for letting someone die.
Oh, that's right - the afterlife - I keep forgetting. Death isn't bad - it is moving on - as long as you are right with God/Jesus etc. before you die.
Get rid of all of it - attribute this to natural forces - no "saving" of life by supernatural means - it just happens - and it all makes sense. To claim one side and not the other - or to claim that it is God's plan - and we can't question it is just plain human rationalization.
now here or no where 6:57 PM | (0) comments |
Sooooo. I notice here that there is a selectiveness of what people attribute to god and what they don't. Nature, hurricane - that isn't god. It is nature. But, the "miracles" - those people who were lucky enough to survive in some odd way is the work of god. But, all those who died or were maimed or have nowhere to go now - why are those not also "non-miracles" of god's work?
I know - lessons can be learned from these things - that there are more important things in life than what Paris Hilton is up to or who she is screwing (or not screwing) - but I will repeat again: If god is responsible for saving a life, then he is also responsible for letting someone die.
Oh, that's right - the afterlife - I keep forgetting. Death isn't bad - it is moving on - as long as you are right with God/Jesus etc. before you die.
Get rid of all of it - attribute this to natural forces - no "saving" of life by supernatural means - it just happens - and it all makes sense. To claim one side and not the other - or to claim that it is God's plan - and we can't question it is just plain human rationalization.
2005-09-25
Suffering
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Suffering
I am currently reading : "Making Sense Out of Suffering " - after having a really long deep conversation with my sister about the effects of Hurricane Katrina and more specifically about the whole idea of suffering and what purpose, if any, that it serves. I proffered my usual tack that this event offers yet more proof to my belief that god does not exist. My reasoning is that if he did, and he is as he is described by christians as all knowing and all good and all powerful, that he would not allow such events to occur.
My sense says that these things happen just because they do. It is just weather acting as impersonal as always - not victimizing anyone for a reason, but just randomly playing out its perpetual cycle. To me this makes much more sense than the whole god, evil vs. good etc. I don't blame god for my ills as I don't think about it that way - if we are just bundles of carbon units just created out of the nothingness of space to congeal to this imperfect being we are today, that sounds much more plausible than some creator having a hand in something so imperfect. It just makes sense that we have grown to where we are.
I do get the whole idea of learning from adversity and without the bad, how could we tell what is good and more importantly, appreciate it. We can learn from things that really pull us down indeed. But, why does the other side have to be supernatural?
Anyway - the book is good so far - and I will reserve judgment and review till I get all the way through it.
now here or no where 9:58 PM | (0) comments |
My sense says that these things happen just because they do. It is just weather acting as impersonal as always - not victimizing anyone for a reason, but just randomly playing out its perpetual cycle. To me this makes much more sense than the whole god, evil vs. good etc. I don't blame god for my ills as I don't think about it that way - if we are just bundles of carbon units just created out of the nothingness of space to congeal to this imperfect being we are today, that sounds much more plausible than some creator having a hand in something so imperfect. It just makes sense that we have grown to where we are.
I do get the whole idea of learning from adversity and without the bad, how could we tell what is good and more importantly, appreciate it. We can learn from things that really pull us down indeed. But, why does the other side have to be supernatural?
Anyway - the book is good so far - and I will reserve judgment and review till I get all the way through it.
2005-09-14
Pledge Unconstitutional
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Pledge Unconstitutional
Bloomberg.com: U.S.: "Pledge Unconstitutional at Public Schools, Judge Says (Update2)
Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- A federal judge in California said the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional, in a ruling that will rekindle a debate over the use of the phrase ``under God.''"
If they just remove "under God" - the pledge would mean basically what it meant when it was written.
The Pledge of Allegiance - A Short History: "His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]" ...
"A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'"
Simple, isn't it? To the point and no invocation of god or gods!
now here or no where 11:10 PM | (0) comments |
Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- A federal judge in California said the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional, in a ruling that will rekindle a debate over the use of the phrase ``under God.''"
If they just remove "under God" - the pledge would mean basically what it meant when it was written.
The Pledge of Allegiance - A Short History: "His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]" ...
"A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'"
Simple, isn't it? To the point and no invocation of god or gods!
2005-09-09
War on Nature
Friday, September 09, 2005
War on Terror is so 2001, now it's War on Nature
So..... let's think about the longer term response to this disaster. It is obvious that we need to rethink our readiness, especially for the first responders and communications - building this from scratch immediately after a storm. The question is cost. Do we have the endurance to go the long haul with this and really commit to it?
Will the government reengineer FEMA?
Will they pass a huge spending bill (not for Katrina relief, but for future disasters)?
And if they enlarge government as they did after 9/11, how will they pay for it.
Will President Bush and congress roll back those tax cuts of a few years ago?
Will they devise a realistic way to pay for all this?
Will this really do any good?
Will more government in this huge task really be effective?
OR
Will this ultimately be seen as a fluke event?
And since it is domestic and not worthy of "spreading democracy", will it get the funding it deserves?
Will this mean we rethink our spending in Iraq?
Will we bring home a lot more troops to help in the relief effort here at home?
Will this have a long term negative effect on Bush and fellow Republicans?
And will the finger pointing help democrats - or will many Americans just get fed up with the whole mess and punish both parties? Then what?
Democrats - it is time for solutions. Yes, we need to investigate this, but we need to be positive and forward thinking - not to constantly berate Bush, FEMA and all the layers that contributed to this. Mistakes were and are being made - hold people accountable - but have fresh ideas and work to solutions to better handle disasters in the future and NOW.
now here or no where 11:07 PM | (0) comments |
Will the government reengineer FEMA?
Will they pass a huge spending bill (not for Katrina relief, but for future disasters)?
And if they enlarge government as they did after 9/11, how will they pay for it.
Will President Bush and congress roll back those tax cuts of a few years ago?
Will they devise a realistic way to pay for all this?
Will this really do any good?
Will more government in this huge task really be effective?
OR
Will this ultimately be seen as a fluke event?
And since it is domestic and not worthy of "spreading democracy", will it get the funding it deserves?
Will this mean we rethink our spending in Iraq?
Will we bring home a lot more troops to help in the relief effort here at home?
Will this have a long term negative effect on Bush and fellow Republicans?
And will the finger pointing help democrats - or will many Americans just get fed up with the whole mess and punish both parties? Then what?
Democrats - it is time for solutions. Yes, we need to investigate this, but we need to be positive and forward thinking - not to constantly berate Bush, FEMA and all the layers that contributed to this. Mistakes were and are being made - hold people accountable - but have fresh ideas and work to solutions to better handle disasters in the future and NOW.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)