Found wondering in the maze, between Earth’s vines and speckled night
When I was to be discovered, cold and shivering
I begged to be tooled with draping wool and lips
I do not remember the eyes that led me
Eagerly to the center, cowering by its walls
But as the numbness dissipated into that green fabric,
The sting of warmth returning to my flesh, I will never shake
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Perfection and Consequence
It’s the instinct to shiver tangled in the wind
Twisted, knotted, and hung on the warm mist--
Streaming out and shuffling in
Its heaviness won’t be what I remember but the stitched guilt
Quietly, calmly, now I’ve gone
The other too busy begging under nail splatter drops of maroon
While I cried over the flow staining the water below
And it was just as easy to swirl away
This November, like two Novembers ago
Nearing the day I grow old
Caught alone…
Ever grateful for faithful friends
Blessed I can smile, guilt free
With them, their ‘wretched’ flesh
Never have I the need to be cleaner than…well, just me
Though, my heart still has room…room for love
Perfection, an expensive illusion
A history in circles and fixed
I shall not exchange peace for eternity
Not I
Not me
Susie E.
11.18.2008
Twisted, knotted, and hung on the warm mist--
Streaming out and shuffling in
Its heaviness won’t be what I remember but the stitched guilt
Quietly, calmly, now I’ve gone
The other too busy begging under nail splatter drops of maroon
While I cried over the flow staining the water below
And it was just as easy to swirl away
This November, like two Novembers ago
Nearing the day I grow old
Caught alone…
Ever grateful for faithful friends
Blessed I can smile, guilt free
With them, their ‘wretched’ flesh
Never have I the need to be cleaner than…well, just me
Though, my heart still has room…room for love
Perfection, an expensive illusion
A history in circles and fixed
I shall not exchange peace for eternity
Not I
Not me
Susie E.
11.18.2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
First Honor
Never have I thought being American was something to be shameful. America is my home after all. Even so, I’ve never owned the proud feelings I’ve seen many others in my nation demonstrate either. Today, however, something has changed. For once I’m joining in on that particular special feeling I have sensed exuding from my neighboring Americans. No longer am I simply aware that I am American. No. Today, I feel privileged and a sense of pride to be American and that awareness offers me hope!
Congratulations, ‘My fellow Americans.’ YES WE CAN.
"In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.
Let's remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House, a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity.
Those are values that we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.
As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection."
"But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to. It belongs to you. It belongs to you...This is your victory." -President Barak Obama
Congratulations, ‘My fellow Americans.’ YES WE CAN.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Spiritual Square?...More Like a Spiritual Hole
I was commenting back to a, if you will, 'blogger buddy' many of you know as Mark and became so immersed in the topic at hand that I couldn't help but make my comment a blog post. Thanks Mark_W.
I've only met one Christian in my lifetime to allow me to question his rationality on god with complete acceptance of my questions and dare I say even likes to ponder them. It seems to me he has never gone about it from a nonbeliever's point of view and he seems to like the challenge. However, debating with him is like trying to pinpoint where he comes up with some of his 'wild' beliefs that have no bases in the bible. It's like unraveling a mess of cords so that you understand where ONE electronic device's plug is so you can unplug it to fix the device's dysfunction safely.
Jean Piaget, as I am sure you know, was a developmental psychologist who theorized cognitive development into 4 stages. It is interesting to note stage 2 (2 to 7 years of age) of his theory, Preoperational thinking, in which the child uses symbolistic type of thinking. Wikipedia describes it best, "They use intuitive rather than logical reasoning." In the subcategory of this stage, "The intuitive stage is when children start employing mental activities to solve problems and obtain goals but they are unaware of how they came to their conclusions (wikipedia)." To illustrate this type of thinking I will try to reiterate a class I had one day long ago. We had watched a video in which they conducted an experiment with many children using a measuring cup, 2 different sized drinking glasses, a large shallow baking dish, and a pitcher full of water colored blue. All the experiment's supplies sat on a table and each child would sit with the experimenter in front of the table. Before the child sat an abnormally tall and skinny glass filled with exactly 2 cups of water and a fat and short glass filled with exactly 2 cups of water. The examiner asked the child to tell him which glass held the most amount of water. Some children pondered for a moment but every last child that sat in front of that table pointed to the tall and skinny glass of water to have the most amount of water. The experimenter then asked the child, "How do you know this glass (the tall glass) has more water than this glass (the fat glass)." It was obvious that each child was not prepared to be asked this question but every answer, though somewhat varied in their logic, approximated there was more water in the tall glass because the water rose above the other glass' water. Without telling them that their thinking was plain illogical the experimenter continued onward. Next he pulled out 2 measuring cups exact in make, height, and width. He looked at the child and asked them if the one measuring cups was just like the other and could hold no more or no less than the other. Each child closely examined the measuring cups, careful not to be tricked, and each child agreed that indeed, each measuring cup was just like the other. The experimenter then poured all the contents of the tall glass into one measuring cup and all the contents in the fat glass in the other. He then asked the child, "How much water is in this measuring cup?" The child replied, 2 cups. The experimenter went over to the other measuring cup and again, the child replied two cups. The child didn't even think about what had just transpired just minutes earlier. He was too enthralled to see where all this was leading. So to remind the child, the experimenter pulled the two drinking glasses in front of the child and asked the child to tell him again why the child thought there had been more water in the tall glass than the fat glass. Again, the child answered that the water in the tall glass was the obvious choice because the water was higher in that one. So the examiner looked at the child and asked the kid if he (the experimenter) had heard the child correctly, "This measuring cup has the same exact amount of water as this measuring cup." The child replied, "Yes." Then the experimenter asked to make sure that he understood that the tall glass held more water, again, "Yes." "Ok, if this cup has the same as this cup then if I pour it in these glasses, they should look even?" "Yes," the child concluded. So the experimenter poured the 2 cups into the fat glass and then...poured the other water into the tall glass. The child's jaw instantly dropped!
I know that was a long illustration but I think you can see where I am going. I hope you can bear with me a while longer because this concept is kind of hard to communicate in terms that will make sense to another reader, but here it goes.
There is no way for believers to go through a kind of spiritual growth and development because they cannot tangibly interact with an invisible environment nor manipulate the objects in it. This comes as no surprise as there is no such environment for one to possibly be able to participate in basic fundamental tasks necessary for development. What I mean to say is that their spirituality is only an inner knowledge of their beliefs. It's not an outside entity for which they can objectively see. When they make a mistake or make correct conclusions in their spirituality, they cannot observe or measure their mistake or correctness. For instance, it's like the child sitting in front of a plastic box with different shaped holes with matching blocks made to fit within them: a star, a square, a circle, a triangle, etc. They can try to fit the square in the circle but it will never work and they will eventually discover that it can absolutely never work. We've all seen this; they'll keep plugging away at it until they just give up and pick up another block, and plug at the same square hole with, say, a triangle this time. They keep doing this until they fit the square block into the square hole. However, come the next day, their doing the same nonsense. It isn't until they've been working at this toy for so long that they finally get the idea that a square shape goes into a square shaped hole and eventually their able to do it with ease, get bored, and move on to the next challenge. Yet, finally mastering this seemingly small task, you can only imagine the vast amount of effort and time that child had to put into memorizing, hypothesizing, correcting themselves, adjusting their thinking, the frustration, and the strength and fine tuning their muscles undergo to finally just be able to put a square block into a square hole consistently and without fail every time.
Getting back to the idea of a spiritual growth and development, a believer and god can never go through the above stated undertaking because god is, of course, not there tangibly to interact with. If that child had to cognitively think about how to put that square block into that square hole, without ever laying their eyes on the square block or hole, could the child do it? It seems absurd to think that they could. Even if by some magical chance this child had an adult understanding of language, with no other cognitive ability other than their current stage of development, would any amount of telling and explaining to this child, "Somewhere out there is a square block with a matching hole and I will tell you all about it," would the child ever be able to fit a square with a square. I associate the same concept with believers. They can do a lot of speculating. But what in the hell is a square in the first place, what the hell is 4, what is a side, what is a cube, what's a hole? Who knows what this child's imagination might conjure up? I can almost guarantee you though, if that child was caught shuffling about in his toy bin and coincidentally pulled out the block/hole toy, he'd have no clue what he was playing with. The same goes with theists. With absolutely no physical form, god's followers only have their imaginations left to figure out who and what the hell god is. To me this is interesting because, if you think about it, imagination can only be used to manipulate or tweak reality, i.e. a lion with eagle wings, an alien—a roundish triangle with 2 black pointy like ovals for their eyes, etc. They do not have the opportunity to test out their god hypothesis objectively. The only thing they DO have is contradiction of thought. If one imagination contradicts another enigma then they have to "squarely" imagine something up to heal the dissonance of the nonphysical imaginative alter reality.
Need I remind them that the very notion and concept of the term, "Contradiction," initially comes from understanding contradiction fundamentally—i.e. black and white. To further illustrate this point, one can not know what the number, "Two," implies until someone sits in front of them, for example, two apples. "Here's one apple Timmy and here's another apple, you now have two apples."
All that digression to finally get to my point which is: a believer stays in a stage of intuitive and illogical thinking pertaining to matters concerning faith because without the opportunity to manipulate their environment/god growth and development with god cannot occur. They can imagine it to occur but all they have available is their imagination to test another imagination. Whatever imagination makes most peace with the other imaginations stays…and in cycles we go. Though philosophically speaking, if god is the creator of everything and he created our minds in this fashion of G&D then did god intend us to ever be able to know him at all!?
It is a challenge debating with people of faith, no matter how intelligent they can be and are. Trying to prove factual evidence to the contrary is, I can only describe, like breaking THEIR law of how they imagine the science of the supernatural work. If you can't figure out how they have arrived at their current conclusion, nor they, then communication becomes null--the tall and skinny glass will always and forever contain more water than the short and fat glass. Though I must confess, they provide the oppurtunity for me to own up to my own irrational thinking to myself. Which we all know is a rarity for me to have any irrational thinking ; P
I've only met one Christian in my lifetime to allow me to question his rationality on god with complete acceptance of my questions and dare I say even likes to ponder them. It seems to me he has never gone about it from a nonbeliever's point of view and he seems to like the challenge. However, debating with him is like trying to pinpoint where he comes up with some of his 'wild' beliefs that have no bases in the bible. It's like unraveling a mess of cords so that you understand where ONE electronic device's plug is so you can unplug it to fix the device's dysfunction safely.
Jean Piaget, as I am sure you know, was a developmental psychologist who theorized cognitive development into 4 stages. It is interesting to note stage 2 (2 to 7 years of age) of his theory, Preoperational thinking, in which the child uses symbolistic type of thinking. Wikipedia describes it best, "They use intuitive rather than logical reasoning." In the subcategory of this stage, "The intuitive stage is when children start employing mental activities to solve problems and obtain goals but they are unaware of how they came to their conclusions (wikipedia)." To illustrate this type of thinking I will try to reiterate a class I had one day long ago. We had watched a video in which they conducted an experiment with many children using a measuring cup, 2 different sized drinking glasses, a large shallow baking dish, and a pitcher full of water colored blue. All the experiment's supplies sat on a table and each child would sit with the experimenter in front of the table. Before the child sat an abnormally tall and skinny glass filled with exactly 2 cups of water and a fat and short glass filled with exactly 2 cups of water. The examiner asked the child to tell him which glass held the most amount of water. Some children pondered for a moment but every last child that sat in front of that table pointed to the tall and skinny glass of water to have the most amount of water. The experimenter then asked the child, "How do you know this glass (the tall glass) has more water than this glass (the fat glass)." It was obvious that each child was not prepared to be asked this question but every answer, though somewhat varied in their logic, approximated there was more water in the tall glass because the water rose above the other glass' water. Without telling them that their thinking was plain illogical the experimenter continued onward. Next he pulled out 2 measuring cups exact in make, height, and width. He looked at the child and asked them if the one measuring cups was just like the other and could hold no more or no less than the other. Each child closely examined the measuring cups, careful not to be tricked, and each child agreed that indeed, each measuring cup was just like the other. The experimenter then poured all the contents of the tall glass into one measuring cup and all the contents in the fat glass in the other. He then asked the child, "How much water is in this measuring cup?" The child replied, 2 cups. The experimenter went over to the other measuring cup and again, the child replied two cups. The child didn't even think about what had just transpired just minutes earlier. He was too enthralled to see where all this was leading. So to remind the child, the experimenter pulled the two drinking glasses in front of the child and asked the child to tell him again why the child thought there had been more water in the tall glass than the fat glass. Again, the child answered that the water in the tall glass was the obvious choice because the water was higher in that one. So the examiner looked at the child and asked the kid if he (the experimenter) had heard the child correctly, "This measuring cup has the same exact amount of water as this measuring cup." The child replied, "Yes." Then the experimenter asked to make sure that he understood that the tall glass held more water, again, "Yes." "Ok, if this cup has the same as this cup then if I pour it in these glasses, they should look even?" "Yes," the child concluded. So the experimenter poured the 2 cups into the fat glass and then...poured the other water into the tall glass. The child's jaw instantly dropped!
I know that was a long illustration but I think you can see where I am going. I hope you can bear with me a while longer because this concept is kind of hard to communicate in terms that will make sense to another reader, but here it goes.
There is no way for believers to go through a kind of spiritual growth and development because they cannot tangibly interact with an invisible environment nor manipulate the objects in it. This comes as no surprise as there is no such environment for one to possibly be able to participate in basic fundamental tasks necessary for development. What I mean to say is that their spirituality is only an inner knowledge of their beliefs. It's not an outside entity for which they can objectively see. When they make a mistake or make correct conclusions in their spirituality, they cannot observe or measure their mistake or correctness. For instance, it's like the child sitting in front of a plastic box with different shaped holes with matching blocks made to fit within them: a star, a square, a circle, a triangle, etc. They can try to fit the square in the circle but it will never work and they will eventually discover that it can absolutely never work. We've all seen this; they'll keep plugging away at it until they just give up and pick up another block, and plug at the same square hole with, say, a triangle this time. They keep doing this until they fit the square block into the square hole. However, come the next day, their doing the same nonsense. It isn't until they've been working at this toy for so long that they finally get the idea that a square shape goes into a square shaped hole and eventually their able to do it with ease, get bored, and move on to the next challenge. Yet, finally mastering this seemingly small task, you can only imagine the vast amount of effort and time that child had to put into memorizing, hypothesizing, correcting themselves, adjusting their thinking, the frustration, and the strength and fine tuning their muscles undergo to finally just be able to put a square block into a square hole consistently and without fail every time.
Getting back to the idea of a spiritual growth and development, a believer and god can never go through the above stated undertaking because god is, of course, not there tangibly to interact with. If that child had to cognitively think about how to put that square block into that square hole, without ever laying their eyes on the square block or hole, could the child do it? It seems absurd to think that they could. Even if by some magical chance this child had an adult understanding of language, with no other cognitive ability other than their current stage of development, would any amount of telling and explaining to this child, "Somewhere out there is a square block with a matching hole and I will tell you all about it," would the child ever be able to fit a square with a square. I associate the same concept with believers. They can do a lot of speculating. But what in the hell is a square in the first place, what the hell is 4, what is a side, what is a cube, what's a hole? Who knows what this child's imagination might conjure up? I can almost guarantee you though, if that child was caught shuffling about in his toy bin and coincidentally pulled out the block/hole toy, he'd have no clue what he was playing with. The same goes with theists. With absolutely no physical form, god's followers only have their imaginations left to figure out who and what the hell god is. To me this is interesting because, if you think about it, imagination can only be used to manipulate or tweak reality, i.e. a lion with eagle wings, an alien—a roundish triangle with 2 black pointy like ovals for their eyes, etc. They do not have the opportunity to test out their god hypothesis objectively. The only thing they DO have is contradiction of thought. If one imagination contradicts another enigma then they have to "squarely" imagine something up to heal the dissonance of the nonphysical imaginative alter reality.
Need I remind them that the very notion and concept of the term, "Contradiction," initially comes from understanding contradiction fundamentally—i.e. black and white. To further illustrate this point, one can not know what the number, "Two," implies until someone sits in front of them, for example, two apples. "Here's one apple Timmy and here's another apple, you now have two apples."
All that digression to finally get to my point which is: a believer stays in a stage of intuitive and illogical thinking pertaining to matters concerning faith because without the opportunity to manipulate their environment/god growth and development with god cannot occur. They can imagine it to occur but all they have available is their imagination to test another imagination. Whatever imagination makes most peace with the other imaginations stays…and in cycles we go. Though philosophically speaking, if god is the creator of everything and he created our minds in this fashion of G&D then did god intend us to ever be able to know him at all!?
It is a challenge debating with people of faith, no matter how intelligent they can be and are. Trying to prove factual evidence to the contrary is, I can only describe, like breaking THEIR law of how they imagine the science of the supernatural work. If you can't figure out how they have arrived at their current conclusion, nor they, then communication becomes null--the tall and skinny glass will always and forever contain more water than the short and fat glass. Though I must confess, they provide the oppurtunity for me to own up to my own irrational thinking to myself. Which we all know is a rarity for me to have any irrational thinking ; P
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Compared to God: We Only have a Limited View
I had a discussion today with a Christian (now a few days ago) in which we discussed time and how god was not bound by its constraints. As obvious as this is to this person, that god isn’t bound by time, her conclusion left me a bit puzzled as to how she arrived at her ‘undenialable’ conclusion. In an effort to understand her position I asked, “Wait, how do you know god is not, as you say, bound by time?” She seemed to think my questioning into the reality of time and god was unworthy of any dignified answer for the only answer I received was an irritated reply, “Please! He’s god, he can do anything he wants!” Apparently, my question seemed juvenile to this lady. Though I could see the annoyance of my simple inquiry was building, I couldn’t help but to ask a few more. “Ok, so god isn’t bound by time because he is god. So why does god let bad things happen to innocent people, like children molestation and people’s mother killed, or 9/11?” Her reply was as expected, “I don’t know why. Sometimes bad things happen and we, as God’s children, can’t possibly understand God because we only have a limited view. We just have to trust God.”
I do not know how people can't see the inherent contradiction they exude with such explanations that snub away tangible, uncomfortable, immoral acts that happen to people under god's supposed omnipotent power and yet at the same time they know precisely how the unobservable science of God manifests itself invisibly...but apparently rendered obvious. How is it that of all the things 'god's children' possibly cannot know concerning god, like how he escapes the laws of physics, space, time, etc., people of faith 'just' automatically know? Yet, when it comes to actually physical observable matters and situations, like child molestation, the science of god and all of his previously known magnificent powers is suddenly lost on them? It seems convenient at these times to all of a sudden not know how God works, except to say that he has some 'unknowable plan' for which they KNOW is holy. I can only figure that the belief that God is all good, all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere makes the knowledge of situations like, again, child molestation quite uncomfortable for those believers to continue to swallow. That is, unless they can come up with an explanation that allows a good-god and child molestation to exist peacefully side by side.
The psychologist, Leon Festinger's, included the process that one’s cognition follows when one merges a belief that contradicts another belief into his widely accepted theory of Cognitive Dissonance. For example, the dissonance between the belief that god is all powerful and good and the belief that child molestation is bad/evil is healed, by the faithful, when they conclude that ‘god’s children only have a limited view’ disabling anybody to conclude that god may not be so good after all...or even doesn’t exist all together. That is, if you choose to believe the absolutely unverifiable resolution of the ‘limited view’ position.
The simple notion that we all have a limited view compared to god's is a contradictory statement in and of itself. If they truly believe they have a limited view, how do they even erect the ‘limited view’ belief? For, if they truly had a limited view how could they know for sure they don't have a limited view on having a limited view. As a matter of fact, if they have a limited view, how do they discern that god is good? Furthermore, how do they KNOW they even have a limited view?
The whole ‘limited view’ position begs a person not to think for themselves. For instance, would rapping a woman ever be moral? I’m sure that everyone reading this blog, religious or not, will maintain an absolute, “No,” to that question without hesitation. Though, I invite anyone reading to contradict me if someone feels otherwise. However, in all of our ‘limited view’ the ‘holy’ book by ‘God’ states in Deuteronomy 21: 11-14 :
11: And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife
12: Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13: And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
14: And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
Not only does god say it’s ok, but he makes it an act worthy of a month preparation ritual of humbling. Not only does this man get to rape her at his will, but desecrate her as well. Who cannot stand up and say that an act of this kind is not wrong in any given situation? I certainly can. Yet, were I to maintain a limited view on God then how could I possibly disagree with god’s own words. He is, after all, all good and knows more than me and my ‘limited view’. And to go ahead and refute the popular rebuttal that Jesus’ returned to abolished the old law I shall insert Matthew 5: 17-18 here:
17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18: I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Has anyone changed their mind that rape of a woman under any circumstance has changed yet? Even though god, supposedly himself, maintains that it is just fine to rape in time of war. Hey, a man has to satisfy himself somehow, right? Yet, I presume everyone remains disgusted with the idea of woman violence, especially under god’s name.
Still, had the Christian followers maintained a ‘limited view’ on this matter, would we still see these kinds of acts still happening today? I imagine some may disagree but I would like to remind people that atrocities still happen in the vain of those who fervently persist that the bible is an absolutely moral book for which one must read and follow. Immoral acts are endured everyday by homosexuals, atheists, women, African Americans, etc., because those who believe in the bible’s complete morality thrush it upon these people. Furthermore, the ‘we only have a limited view’ excuse exacerbates the problem of clear injustice retained by these people. The very idea that one only has a limited view compared to god’s, chokes any independent thought from his followers. And so it follows, those who desire power cannot preside over a people who freely express independence in their thinking and rationality.
Can people of any faith really not comprehend that their confident answers about god consist of absolutely no obtainable evidence and that the time their “I don’t knows” come rolling out of their mouth the “we can’t possibly understand god because of a limited view” notions are always correlated with actual observable happenings? Do they not see that making something up that is improvable bodes well to never having to withstand ever being proven wrong? Indeed, whatever one has made up to feed the dissonance in their head stands a good chance of keeping a delusion valid. I suppose that is why those with schizophrenia and other mental illness rarely come to the conclusion they are actually schizophrenic. They feel that the delusion, hallucination, etc. is actually happening; therefore, it is actually happening. I really don’t think most are daft enough not to grasp this concept. However, whether or not they want to grasp it, I think, holds the answer and is a whole other blog altogether ;)).
I do not know how people can't see the inherent contradiction they exude with such explanations that snub away tangible, uncomfortable, immoral acts that happen to people under god's supposed omnipotent power and yet at the same time they know precisely how the unobservable science of God manifests itself invisibly...but apparently rendered obvious. How is it that of all the things 'god's children' possibly cannot know concerning god, like how he escapes the laws of physics, space, time, etc., people of faith 'just' automatically know? Yet, when it comes to actually physical observable matters and situations, like child molestation, the science of god and all of his previously known magnificent powers is suddenly lost on them? It seems convenient at these times to all of a sudden not know how God works, except to say that he has some 'unknowable plan' for which they KNOW is holy. I can only figure that the belief that God is all good, all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere makes the knowledge of situations like, again, child molestation quite uncomfortable for those believers to continue to swallow. That is, unless they can come up with an explanation that allows a good-god and child molestation to exist peacefully side by side.
The psychologist, Leon Festinger's, included the process that one’s cognition follows when one merges a belief that contradicts another belief into his widely accepted theory of Cognitive Dissonance. For example, the dissonance between the belief that god is all powerful and good and the belief that child molestation is bad/evil is healed, by the faithful, when they conclude that ‘god’s children only have a limited view’ disabling anybody to conclude that god may not be so good after all...or even doesn’t exist all together. That is, if you choose to believe the absolutely unverifiable resolution of the ‘limited view’ position.
The simple notion that we all have a limited view compared to god's is a contradictory statement in and of itself. If they truly believe they have a limited view, how do they even erect the ‘limited view’ belief? For, if they truly had a limited view how could they know for sure they don't have a limited view on having a limited view. As a matter of fact, if they have a limited view, how do they discern that god is good? Furthermore, how do they KNOW they even have a limited view?
The whole ‘limited view’ position begs a person not to think for themselves. For instance, would rapping a woman ever be moral? I’m sure that everyone reading this blog, religious or not, will maintain an absolute, “No,” to that question without hesitation. Though, I invite anyone reading to contradict me if someone feels otherwise. However, in all of our ‘limited view’ the ‘holy’ book by ‘God’ states in Deuteronomy 21: 11-14 :
11: And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife
12: Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13: And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
14: And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
Not only does god say it’s ok, but he makes it an act worthy of a month preparation ritual of humbling. Not only does this man get to rape her at his will, but desecrate her as well. Who cannot stand up and say that an act of this kind is not wrong in any given situation? I certainly can. Yet, were I to maintain a limited view on God then how could I possibly disagree with god’s own words. He is, after all, all good and knows more than me and my ‘limited view’. And to go ahead and refute the popular rebuttal that Jesus’ returned to abolished the old law I shall insert Matthew 5: 17-18 here:
17: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18: I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Has anyone changed their mind that rape of a woman under any circumstance has changed yet? Even though god, supposedly himself, maintains that it is just fine to rape in time of war. Hey, a man has to satisfy himself somehow, right? Yet, I presume everyone remains disgusted with the idea of woman violence, especially under god’s name.
Still, had the Christian followers maintained a ‘limited view’ on this matter, would we still see these kinds of acts still happening today? I imagine some may disagree but I would like to remind people that atrocities still happen in the vain of those who fervently persist that the bible is an absolutely moral book for which one must read and follow. Immoral acts are endured everyday by homosexuals, atheists, women, African Americans, etc., because those who believe in the bible’s complete morality thrush it upon these people. Furthermore, the ‘we only have a limited view’ excuse exacerbates the problem of clear injustice retained by these people. The very idea that one only has a limited view compared to god’s, chokes any independent thought from his followers. And so it follows, those who desire power cannot preside over a people who freely express independence in their thinking and rationality.
Can people of any faith really not comprehend that their confident answers about god consist of absolutely no obtainable evidence and that the time their “I don’t knows” come rolling out of their mouth the “we can’t possibly understand god because of a limited view” notions are always correlated with actual observable happenings? Do they not see that making something up that is improvable bodes well to never having to withstand ever being proven wrong? Indeed, whatever one has made up to feed the dissonance in their head stands a good chance of keeping a delusion valid. I suppose that is why those with schizophrenia and other mental illness rarely come to the conclusion they are actually schizophrenic. They feel that the delusion, hallucination, etc. is actually happening; therefore, it is actually happening. I really don’t think most are daft enough not to grasp this concept. However, whether or not they want to grasp it, I think, holds the answer and is a whole other blog altogether ;)).
Saturday, October 25, 2008
An Armoire
To this distant memory, an armoire, and one night
My veins held within them a boiling fire of haste and naught
Feeding my flesh with calcium, brazed cotton, and lacquered wood
Never had it been predicted, but shall remain unknown
As abstract melodies sing,
my lungs cried and inhaled the smoke,
Breath that night was lost in the stars falling to earth's craters,
but awoke this early morn I did,
To find nothing but my pillow, tea, and book
Not a rain cloud sprinkled for those lusting in thirst
Tis but life's brave surrender after summer's birth
And what shall move onward through winter's blessed death
Will await by the stolen hearth
to contemplate the lowly chill of that memory and of an armoire
Susie E.
My veins held within them a boiling fire of haste and naught
Feeding my flesh with calcium, brazed cotton, and lacquered wood
Never had it been predicted, but shall remain unknown
As abstract melodies sing,
my lungs cried and inhaled the smoke,
Breath that night was lost in the stars falling to earth's craters,
but awoke this early morn I did,
To find nothing but my pillow, tea, and book
Not a rain cloud sprinkled for those lusting in thirst
Tis but life's brave surrender after summer's birth
And what shall move onward through winter's blessed death
Will await by the stolen hearth
to contemplate the lowly chill of that memory and of an armoire
Susie E.
Friday, October 24, 2008
6 Billion Heroes, 1 Reality
Doesn't the word hero seem to impress on one a kind of inferiority to another's characteristics or materials? That is the thing about the phrase, "My hero," it is convoluted with a connotation of someone a person can always aim to be. "Heroes" are chosen and revered on the sheer pretense by the ones whom give their hero their status by something they can "honorably" try to be.
Yet, the term honor is like another hero all together. Society’s Superman if you will. What is defined as “honorable” is learned from one's familial background and one’s cultural environment. The individual who grows up in their particular surrounding will ultimately build a schema upon his/her immediate reality shared by those who neighbor his/her unique individual reality. In essence, the quote, “No man is an island,” explains the affect of one’s ‘nurture’. Though, the reason for aspiring and the consequence of said aspiration is lost.
Taking the assumption that one is shaped by ones environment to one degree or another one has to then follow that individual’s choice would also be shaped by one’s environment. For what is a permissible goal for one to achieve will be revered, or not, as worthy, or not, on the various levels set by the individual’s society and/or family. This serves to give the achiever the illusion that making the proverbial choice of his/her life’s direction will or will not make him happy. This conclusion comes from the idea that if one’s schema is built upon his/her direct environment then driving the same road to happiness will also serve him/her in the same way.
However, as one grows and detaches from their initial ‘reality’ and sets out on the road to become an ‘adult’ different individual schemas abound and one’s prior realizations must once again be reworked. With an ever-changing environment, it is no surprise that a single constant is desired and gives hope to individuals constantly having to readapt themselves to merely survive and attain what they need or desire (Maslow’s hierarchy may help to pinpoint more precisely what various persons need (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_needs). With a single thread one can grasp onto, they can find security in a world filled with many different realities and/or delusions. It is here where one’s hero is given genesis.
Be it Jesus, Allah, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, a celebrity, or whom-have-you, these individuals seem to be common heroes throughout the world that give various individuals a constant ‘thing’ they can always try and attain. These types of heroes seem to be used as a measure of how far the striver is from their ultimate destination or even how ‘good’ the person is to their immediate surroundings—giving the immortal a very good illusion of honor and quality (or lack thereof) through prior inserted beliefs into one’s schema and the reactions of others to them and their choices. Though, it stands to reason that if a hero is chosen based on the hero’s ability to be a forever aim, how can one ever hope to reach their dreams? That is, unless one’s dream is to please those around him/her (which in this society, is not highly revered, even though, giving or sacrifice for others is)…
Unfortunately for some and fortunately for others, the future is not a destined or designed absolution but an abysmal uncertainty. In a world of an estimated 6 billion unique individuals living out and through varied situations, one's destiny is surely directly related to the limits and freedom of one's own creativity and will in the present to shape future reality. After all, there is but one reality and any deviation from that reality is wishful thinking, delusional, or false. The world is not ‘flat,’ it is round no matter how many persons of authority or one’s society denies this reality. Their denial does not change the fact that they still live on a round earth. There are not varying realities, there are only illogical misinterpretations of reality by one’s consciousness.
So when I am asked, "Who is my hero or heroes," I have to make clear that my varied collection consist of those whom have taught me something…anything. For it is those who have been able to ‘positively’ teach me, that provide me with an opportunity to realize I can become what is commonly meant as a 'hero' unto myself. The opportunity they forward, perhaps unknowingly, is their ability to contradict my thinking so that my ego can subside, just long enough, to allow a tinny, tiny, little-bitty seed to be implanted into this very small, insignificant mind, with an abundance of stubborn and irrational beliefs so that I can be more present in the one and only reality.
Ultimately, then, those who aid in the attainment of one realizing their greatest and realistic potential as a human being are the true unnoticed heroes in this time of 'presently' wherein the fervently clung words of perfect and imperfect exist not.
Yet, the term honor is like another hero all together. Society’s Superman if you will. What is defined as “honorable” is learned from one's familial background and one’s cultural environment. The individual who grows up in their particular surrounding will ultimately build a schema upon his/her immediate reality shared by those who neighbor his/her unique individual reality. In essence, the quote, “No man is an island,” explains the affect of one’s ‘nurture’. Though, the reason for aspiring and the consequence of said aspiration is lost.
Taking the assumption that one is shaped by ones environment to one degree or another one has to then follow that individual’s choice would also be shaped by one’s environment. For what is a permissible goal for one to achieve will be revered, or not, as worthy, or not, on the various levels set by the individual’s society and/or family. This serves to give the achiever the illusion that making the proverbial choice of his/her life’s direction will or will not make him happy. This conclusion comes from the idea that if one’s schema is built upon his/her direct environment then driving the same road to happiness will also serve him/her in the same way.
However, as one grows and detaches from their initial ‘reality’ and sets out on the road to become an ‘adult’ different individual schemas abound and one’s prior realizations must once again be reworked. With an ever-changing environment, it is no surprise that a single constant is desired and gives hope to individuals constantly having to readapt themselves to merely survive and attain what they need or desire (Maslow’s hierarchy may help to pinpoint more precisely what various persons need (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_needs). With a single thread one can grasp onto, they can find security in a world filled with many different realities and/or delusions. It is here where one’s hero is given genesis.
Be it Jesus, Allah, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, a celebrity, or whom-have-you, these individuals seem to be common heroes throughout the world that give various individuals a constant ‘thing’ they can always try and attain. These types of heroes seem to be used as a measure of how far the striver is from their ultimate destination or even how ‘good’ the person is to their immediate surroundings—giving the immortal a very good illusion of honor and quality (or lack thereof) through prior inserted beliefs into one’s schema and the reactions of others to them and their choices. Though, it stands to reason that if a hero is chosen based on the hero’s ability to be a forever aim, how can one ever hope to reach their dreams? That is, unless one’s dream is to please those around him/her (which in this society, is not highly revered, even though, giving or sacrifice for others is)…
Unfortunately for some and fortunately for others, the future is not a destined or designed absolution but an abysmal uncertainty. In a world of an estimated 6 billion unique individuals living out and through varied situations, one's destiny is surely directly related to the limits and freedom of one's own creativity and will in the present to shape future reality. After all, there is but one reality and any deviation from that reality is wishful thinking, delusional, or false. The world is not ‘flat,’ it is round no matter how many persons of authority or one’s society denies this reality. Their denial does not change the fact that they still live on a round earth. There are not varying realities, there are only illogical misinterpretations of reality by one’s consciousness.
So when I am asked, "Who is my hero or heroes," I have to make clear that my varied collection consist of those whom have taught me something…anything. For it is those who have been able to ‘positively’ teach me, that provide me with an opportunity to realize I can become what is commonly meant as a 'hero' unto myself. The opportunity they forward, perhaps unknowingly, is their ability to contradict my thinking so that my ego can subside, just long enough, to allow a tinny, tiny, little-bitty seed to be implanted into this very small, insignificant mind, with an abundance of stubborn and irrational beliefs so that I can be more present in the one and only reality.
Ultimately, then, those who aid in the attainment of one realizing their greatest and realistic potential as a human being are the true unnoticed heroes in this time of 'presently' wherein the fervently clung words of perfect and imperfect exist not.
Am Gone
Perhaps I am naive, missing this ship completely
Sailing against the tide and shore, my feet molding grains of sand
Tell me if you find that island, if they make paper on such isolated grounds
But, if your compass breaks follow gravity above the level of the sea
You will find me seated under the orange moon and clouds
Just follow the dispersed imprints that shall begin at the pointed bow
That is, if the salty foam has not washed them smooth and even with the ocean's floor
Saturday, October 4, 2008
The Night
Beware, beware, the night approaches!
Riding on the heels of day.
Chasing it out of the sky,
Keeping it at bay.
Beware, beware the night approaches!
Now the world is at its pleasure.
Whipping the wind into a frenzy,
Doing it for its leisure.
Beware, beware, the night approaches!
Travellers, take care!
For the darkness will target you,
Of mishaps you'll have your share.
Beware, beware, the night approaches!
As you snuggle down in your bed,
Branches will beckon from outside your window,
Frenzied figures will fill you with dread.
Beware, beware, the night approaches!
But now the day peeps through,
Chasing on the heels of night,
Dispelling the darkness from you.
The last shreds of night now disappear,
There is no more for you to fear.
The night is gone, and the day is here,
Your mind is now quite clear.
The dawn has broken
The night has gone-
All is quiet
Except for bird song.
Author: Jonathan Ward
Posted with permission of its author. To make mention, this quite outstanding poem was published in a book of poems called, "Over the Moon: Bedfordshire, England," when he was just 12. Amazing, no?
Riding on the heels of day.
Chasing it out of the sky,
Keeping it at bay.
Beware, beware the night approaches!
Now the world is at its pleasure.
Whipping the wind into a frenzy,
Doing it for its leisure.
Beware, beware, the night approaches!
Travellers, take care!
For the darkness will target you,
Of mishaps you'll have your share.
Beware, beware, the night approaches!
As you snuggle down in your bed,
Branches will beckon from outside your window,
Frenzied figures will fill you with dread.
Beware, beware, the night approaches!
But now the day peeps through,
Chasing on the heels of night,
Dispelling the darkness from you.
The last shreds of night now disappear,
There is no more for you to fear.
The night is gone, and the day is here,
Your mind is now quite clear.
The dawn has broken
The night has gone-
All is quiet
Except for bird song.
Author: Jonathan Ward
Posted with permission of its author. To make mention, this quite outstanding poem was published in a book of poems called, "Over the Moon: Bedfordshire, England," when he was just 12. Amazing, no?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
