Agnostics Unlimited

An Easter treat

2010-04-05T10:38:00.000-07:00

“It is done.”

He closed his eyes and the pain simply stopped. There was no fading, no gradual lessening. The pain was just gone. His arms previously numb from hours of hanging felt neither tired, nor sore. Even the oppressive heat of the day was gone. He opened his eyes.

EVENING

It was night although far on the horizon a glow, signaling the start or end of another day, seemed partially hidden by fog. The sky lacked a moon, or even stars. He was sitting on the ground but felt neither its roughness nor cold. Standing, glorious as it was without pain, gave him no sense of firmness. It was as if the ground, even the night around him, lacked substance. His eyes sought some feature to focus on. His toes, wiggling, sought to distinguish between grass, or rock or sand with no success.

Finally, a sound like a low murmur heard through a wall. It was voices but he could not determine their source or number. Craning his head first one direction, then another did not change their volume or tenor. Like his eyes seeking something to see, his ears strained to catch a discernible sound.

Another sound, like the faint rustling of leaves in the softest of breezes came from behind him. A sigh made without breath. He felt no wind, no cool change in the air but turned, hoping.

No longer facing the horizon, he saw, campfires? In the distance the faint glows did not flicker nor flare. Steady points of unmoving lights seemed to stretch into the sky.

Was he in a valley? Looking back at the glow on the horizon, it did not offer any clue as to the shape of the land between it and his position.

The voice, when it came, was a whisper that sounded as if it were spoken directly into his ear. His quick turn towards the voice upset his footing and he fell over but did not fall down.

“You glow,” it said.

It was the voice of his mother yet; it was of the same spirit as his Father. That was not possible for he knew his Father’s voice and this was not it.

“You’re brighter than the others though.”

“What others?” he asked.

“The others that glow.” It was said so matter-of-factly that any question he may have had died before getting a chance to be spoken. He looked again at what he thought were campfires and realized they had shape and they were not as distant as he first thought.

“Why?” he asked.

“Don’t you know?”

He looked down at his hands. There was no pain, no bleeding, but a definite brightness that varied only slightly around the wounds. His feet showed the same variations. He did glow, but it did not add any illumination to the surrounding ground.

“I have my Father with me,” he proclaimed.

“No, you are alone.”

“He is with me always, even as you are now.”

“He is not, nor am I.”

He knew the second the other spoke that it was the truth. His Father was not here. He could not feel the comforting presence, nor hear the whisper of his approval. Even his eyes still sought focus onto the other with no success. And once again he felt the despair he felt on the cross. The pain had become his companion, his foundation. In the absence of his Father, he held onto the only thing he felt, his pain. And now, with it gone, the loss of his Father came rushing back to him.

“Why are you doing that?” the other asked.
The pain of the loss grew. He felt it in his chest and squeezed his arms together in a tight embrace.

“If you continue you will join the others.”

He did not want to listen, the pain spread and he fell to the ground.

“Was that him?” asked a new voice in the distance.
“No. See. The glow is fading already.”

The pain quieted the voices. The pain was familiar. He could feel the spikes again in his hands and feet. The shouts of the crowd boiled in his ears and he could feel the warmth of the blood on his face. The pain was like strength, it flowed back into the darkness.

A sharp scream turned his head, pain momentarily forgotten.

“NO, NO, it’s mine, MINE!”

A figure came running from the direction of the glowing horizon. It did not block the view of the horizon so he is not sure why he knew where it was coming from, but the outline of the figure was running very fast.

“MINE I tell YOU, MINE!” it shouted.

Like the voice that had been talking before, he knew this voice. Again, it was like the spirit of his Father but not his Father. He wanted to reach out to the figure as it ran closer. His pain forgotten, he could see and hear the pain coming from the shouts.

“NO ONE ELSE, MINE, LEAVE ME ALONE!”

He stood and moved towards the figure.

“No, don’t do that!” yelled the first voice he heard.

The figure slammed into him, knocking both of them down. He, he was sure now it was a man, was freezing. Every touch seemed to drain heat from his body.
“WHAT ARE YOU DOING? TRYING TO TAKE IT AWAY? IT’S MINE, LEAVE ME ALONE, MINE!!”

He was kicked and struck and the man jumped up and resumed running.

“FOREVER MINE, NO ONE CAN TAKE IT, MINE!”

The figure quickly was lost in the darkness but he saw others that were glowing move away from the direction of the shouts.

“What were you trying to do?”

“He was in pain.”

“So were you.”

His pain. Forgotten for the moment had fled again. This time he knew if he wanted he could bring it back but shook his head. Why seek out pain? Why take on pain when you did not need to?

“Because it was yours,” said the other. “You’re glowing again.”

He looked at his hands and feet and saw that the blood and spikes were gone, the glow had returned.

“But he…”
“Could not have been helped. He wanted his pain, he would not have given it up now. He can see and feel and hold it like a treasure of immense wealth. If he were to give it up, he would cease and he will not.”

“Do you know him?”
“No, but there are many like him. Soon you will see and hear them often.”

“How do you know?”
“I’ve been here awhile.”

“What is your name,” he asked.
“Name?”
“Yes, your name?”
“I had a name. It was…”
“Asrith. Your name is Asrith.”

“How do you know my name when I can not remember it?”

“I am,” he replied. And the glow grew.

MORNING

“Is he the one?” whispered the voice.
“Maybe,” replied Asrith.

“How long have you been here Asrith?” he asked.
“Time has no meaning here. I have been here. Before, I hunted. My brother and I were close to killing a wildebeest and I awoke here. I have been here since.”

“Where are you from? Palestine? Greece? Rome?”

“I do not know those places. My village is Antgara. It is by a river near the White Mountain.”

“There is another by your side,” he proclaimed.

“He was here before me, he does not have a name, or does not remember his name,” responded Asrith.

“I know him. He is Weiyou.”
“It is him!” exclaimed Weiyou.

“Who am I Weiyou?” he asked.
“You are the one the will end the night!” Weiyou said.

AFTERNOON

“How?” asked Asrith. “Can you?”

“The night is part of the day. To end one is to end the other. Why would I end the night?” he asked.

“So that we might wake up,” cried Weiyou. “The Sun sits below the horizon, not moving. No stars guide us, the Moon has failed. There is no warmth, no food. We do not sleep. We sit and wait. Some glow as yourself, but most sit and wait.”

“Except the runners,” added Asrith.

Weiyou seemed to move closer. His voice spat, “Runners, always runners. More and more. They burn if you touch them. And they make you tired. Not enough to sleep, but a lot.”

He could see an outline of both Asrith and Weiyou. Like a new moon on a clear night. Darkness on darkness. But neither drained heat away like the ‘runner’.

“Do the runners always run away from the horizon?” he asked.

“I have never seen any do otherwise. They always shout, although it is not always the same, but often it is. I have never seen one that glows run.” Weiyou added.

“How long have you been here Weiyou?”

“Why do you ask again? Asrith was here after, you were here after, others were here before. I have seen no sunrise, no moon. I was left by my tribe, I was here. Has more than a day passed? When were you here?”

“I just arrived,” he said.

“Really? I have known you longer than Asrith.”

This shocked him. He knew the truth of it. He had known Weiyou longer than Asrith but he met Asrith here first. But he knew both. Asrith had many children but Weiyou only had a daughter…she too was here. His eyes looked over towards the horizon and rested on someone with a glow within and knew it was Shuwei. He turned back to Weiyou and looked at him.

“I know you Weiyou,” was all he said.

Asrith turned and moved away.

“Where are you going?” he asked.

“Runners are coming.”

Weiyou and he turned towards the horizon and heard the shouts. “Many of them. We need to move out of their way.”

“Why?” he asked.

He followed them as they walked neither farther nor closer to the horizon. “Their pain will become yours and you will run with them if too many run into you.”

“How do you know this?”

“Did you not like your pain?” Asrith asked.

He thought of his embracing the pain and how easy it was to want to feel, something, anything, again. But he remembered that he stopped seeing and hearing everything else also. And he had a name for the pain.

“Sin.”

“Call it what you will. Pain. Sin. It is the same thing. It takes away the world from you. It becomes more important than anything else. It takes away from anyone that touches it. Runners never let go. They would rather have their pain than to give it up. Your pain did not belong to you. You welcomed it, but it wasn’t yours. If you had kept it, eventually it would have become yours. But when you heard the runner, it fled from you.”

He looked at Asrith. There was no glow in Asrith but he knew that Asrith understood. He reached out and touched Asrith.
Weiyou gasped and both turned to him.

“What have you done?” he yelled. Weiyou fell to his knees and appeared to be crying.

He and Asrith looked at him and then back towards each other. He was astonished. Asrith was glowing.

EVENING

They stood over Weiyou for a long time as he cried. When the crying became slow sobs Asrith knelt beside him.

“Come on my friend. Why are you crying?”

Muffled, but strongly, Weiyou replied, “My daughter. I see her in you. It is as if I see you and her as one. I know you are not her, but I know you as I know her. It is not sorrow, or it is but not pain, that I know that she glowed even in the brightest day. And I know now the source of the glow.”

He stood and put his hand on Asrith’s shoulder. “My friend.” Weiyou turned to him. “You are the one. You are the source. You will end the night.” He sat down but continued to look at him. “I can wait.”

Asrith looked first at Weiyou and then at him. “He is right. We can wait.” He said down next to Weiyou and looked expectantly at him.

He looked at the two men and sat next to them. The runners passed by shouting but he did not have the desire to go towards them. At first he thought he should be ashamed for not wanting to help but knew he could not even if he tried. They were lost in their pain.

He thought about the runner that had run into him. Why did he feel so strongly about that one. It was his voice. Like Asrith and Weiyou, his voice was familiar, but different. He knew their voices, but he remembered the runners….Judas.

The runner was Judas! NO! He bowed his head and started sobbing. Asrith and Weiyou waited for a time before speaking.

“You knew him.”
“I did.”
“His pain is his choice.”

“That does not make it any less.”

Asrith sighed. “Do not make his pain yours. Runners do not wait for the day. Their focus is turned inward. He had a chance to make a choice. He made his choice.”

“If I had given him more attention, maybe it would have been different.”

“And who would you have given less attention?” snapped Weiyou.

“Was that my choice? To give one more attention than another? To say this one is more worthy than another? I would rather none make that choice,” he cried.

“Really? Because it seems you did make a choice. You took all that pain and started to make it yours. Why didn’t you keep it? It was comfortable. You knew it well. Why did you choose not to stay in that pain?” yelled Weiyou.

“Because it was PAIN!” he yelled.

Weiyou stood up and leaned over him. “Right. Amazing how comfortable pain can be when you don’t think anything else is there. But you know there is something else, don’t you. Or do you? What are you waiting for?”

He was confused. “What?” he asked.

Asrith said, “Weiyou asked what are you waiting for?”

He looked at them both. “I….”

“We are waiting for you. What are you waiting for?”

MORNING

What was he waiting for? He looked at the horizon and then back to his companions.

“You have been good friends,” he said. “I would like to spend more time with you….”

“Oh really!? And how much time have you spent with us so far?”

He could see a smile on Weiyou’s face. Like Asrith, Weiyou had started to glow and the light from within he knew had always been there, became visable to Asrith also.

He turned to the horizon and knelt.

“My Father…”

“My Son…”

And dawn broke…

Gay Marriage

2008-12-07T20:17:00.000-08:00

Ever go to a wedding and watch the couple during the marriage ceremony? I have noticed three things have occurred at every one I have attended: 1) the couple is trying not to laugh at some point; 2) the couple at some point is extremely serious; and 3) there is no doubt that they believe every word that is being spoken about the sanctity of marriage.

One out of every two marriages ends in divorce. Most of them will fail because of infidelity. More than half of those that get divorced, will marry again. And not for one second, will any of them call into question the sanctity of marriage in general. The ideal of marriage, like the ideals of the United States may not be fully realized in any one, or couple, but the ideal is more important to all of us, than the failings of a few, or even a lot of us.

So, I understand the difficulty that the vast majority of people, good, honest, loving people that support their gay family members, friends and neighbors, have with the idea of gay marriage. Somehow, someway, the idea of a marriage between anyone but a man and a woman says that this ideal, this state we all hope and aspire to, is no longer worthy, or is no longer available.

Conservatives that look at other conservatives and ask, how can you be for individual liberty yet oppose a basic right to marry someone of your choosing, fail to understand but let me offer a comparison:

You know, the right to bear arms, it was a dream that nowadays you just can't have. Too many people are irresponsible or downright stupid when it comes to guns, and we just need to be realistic - end the right to bear arms.

No? don't like that? Well, that is how people feel about gay marriage. Those that oppose gay marriage don't want to treat gays badly, they even generally agree to most all 'rights' associated with marriage being available to gay couples....but marriage? The ideal is more than they can bear to lose. Even with all the bad outcomes, even when most people consider marriage to be just this side of a jail sentence, the IDEAL is more important than any couples 'rights'.

Let me go off on a little tangent: gay adoption. I keep hearing over and over again, the ideal situation; the ideal marriage; the ideal couple; the ideal parents. I hear people tell me that as long as one straight couple is looking to adopt, gay couples should not be allowed to. The ideal is that every child looking to be adopted would have a line of straight couples waiting to adopt them. There are no such lines. Thousands of children are awaiting adoption and to eliminate gay couples or even single gays that want to adopt from the pool of families is to sentence children to the foster system. The ideal world does not exist for those children and to deny them hope, is to kill the ideal people are trying to 'save'. The ideal has already failed. It can not be retrieved in this arena.

But marriage is different. Every new marriage is another attempt at the ideal. Another chance to reach for, and hopefully attain, the joining of two into one. There is a chance, a hope. So, as long as there is a chance, denying the ideal, or changing it is just beyond the ability of people to consider. Rational, logical, classical liberal positions are all useless discussions because they all require the loss of the ideal. If you are nodding your head, you are wrong. But my saying so, will not change you. Gay marriage does not deny the ideal, it does not eliminate the ideal. Every couple that stands before friends, family and God can still giggle, cry and solemnly believe in the sanctity and the ideal of marriage whether a gay couple does the same thing or not down the street.

But, the ideal can't stand the change, can't stand the variation. It is all or nothing for most people, and that is too bad. I have argued that any institution that can not stand on it's own value, on it's own merits, does not deserve to survive. Society has tested it, and found it no longer valuable enough to support.

So, what is the right way to handle gay marriage? I have argued that civil unions accomplish what most gay people are looking for. Yes, there are many gays that want marriage and their reasons are VALID and not unreasonable. But they are anti-ideal and so will be opposed 'irrationally'.

Here is the problem: every single time any state creates a civil union path and a marriage path, a court will find that separate but equal is unConstitutional, and rightfully so. Get people to think about it for a while, and they will agree, but point out the 'ideal'. So, even if the people of a state WANT to give gays civil unions, it will only be a short period of time before someone gets it into a court and the 'judicial activists' will find 'a new right'. It is a stupid argument because a judge can not find a new right, only recognize one that already exists.

If we can not have civil unions and marriage running side by side and we can't have 'marriage' for all couples, how do we recognize gay couples in such a way as to get the government to treat the couples equally?

I DON'T KNOW.

But, I do know where the answer has to come from: those that hold the ideal of marriage in their minds and hearts. The choice is yours. If you don't come up with an answer, the radical ones, having tasted a little liberty, will continue to agitate for more....and both sides will lose more than I think either understands.

End of times?

2008-10-27T10:43:00.000-07:00

For several years back in the early 80's I was a member of a fundamentalist Christian church that took Scripture literally. One topic at the time was the End Times. This is the part of the Bible dealt with in Revelations and made popular by the Left Behind series.

Here is the deal - for all the talk about the End Times, a significant event for the period to begin is an attack on Israel and it's abandonment by all other countries. Well, as long as the United States supports Israel, such abandonment just wouldn't happen and any potential attacker of Israel must consider our response.

But, imagine a Obama presidency. Would the world think we would continue to give support to Israel? I don't think so, and neither did Jesse Jackson in discussions with European leaders.

I am no longer a believer - but it is interesting....

A shift in focus

2008-04-24T18:38:00.000-07:00

As indicated in a post over at Moderate Mainstream, I intend a change in focus of my writing in the blogs. Here, I have made some similar posts to those intended - specifically, to comment on the writings of others. The on-going work commenting on "The Problem of Pain" by C.S.Lewis being one of those posts, here is a second: From "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mills:

To pass from this to the only other instance of judicial iniquity, the mention of which, after the condemnation of Socrates, would not be an anti-climax: the event which took place on Calvary rather more than eighteen hundred years ago. The man who left on the memory of those who witnessed his life and conversation, such an impression of his moral grandeur, that eighteen subsequent centuries have done homage to him as the Almighty in person, was ignominiously put to death, as what? As a blasphemer. Men did not merely mistake their benefactor; they mistook him for the exact contrary of what he was, and treated him as that prodigy of impiety, which they themselves are now held to be, for their treatment of him. The feelings with which mankind now regard these lamentable transactions, especially the latter of the two, render them extremely unjust in their judgment of the unhappy actors. These were, to all appearance, not bad men--not worse than men most commonly are, but rather the contrary; men who possessed in a full, or somewhat more than a full measure, the religious, moral, and patriotic feelings of their time and people: the very kind of men who, in all times, our own included, have every chance of passing through life blameless and respected. The high-priest who rent his garments when the words were pronounced, which, according to all the ideas of his country, constituted the blackest guilt, was in all probability quite as sincere in his horror and indignation, as the generality of respectable and pious men now are in the religious and moral sentiments they profess; and most of those who now shudder at his conduct, if they had lived in his time and been born Jews, would have acted precisely as he did. Orthodox Christians who are tempted to think that those who stoned to death the first martyrs must have been worse men than they themselves are, ought to remember that one of those persecutors was Saint Paul.

Commentary to follow

A comparison

2008-04-09T09:39:00.000-07:00

It has been a while since I posted. Issues with Victoria's health certainly being one distraction.

However, I came across something that provoked me.

There are a great number of people that believe in God. My question for them is this: do aliens (intelligent life on other planets) exist?

Also, I had the following thought process: I came across the Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis that I was reading and commenting on and renewed some of my original thinking that Lewis is thinking about suffering, more than pain. Pain exists not because of evil, but because ...well, why?

Here is the point: pain exists because we lack perfect knowledge.

A deeply religious man wants your support....

2008-01-06T09:57:00.000-08:00

He speaks about oppression of the little guy. He claims God has given him a purpose and he will fulfill that purpose. He claims his faith is not bound by law, but rather his faith supports the law. He thinks that we should live by the dictates of his religion and he will work to build a country that abides as much by the laws of God as of man, more, if possible.

Osama Bin Laden wants your support. Mike Huckabee has already signed on.

Focus

2007-10-16T07:06:00.000-07:00

Victoria attended a diocesan convention over the weekend. Discussion both there and in our church for most of the last year has been centered around growth. How to grow the membership, how to grow as Christians.

My position for years has been consistent: focus on the flock. Take care of the people in the pews and the rest will take care of itself. However, that is not what gets people excited. They want to see the church in the news taking care of the poor and downtrodden in some pathetic third world place. Or, Peace and Justice committees want to support 'radical' issues like GLBT rights. Meanwhile, parents see their children being taught dogma that is inconsistent with their own beliefs (we had a Quaker as head of our Sunday school for years - not exactly Episcopalian).

If the focus of the church has to be on the people in the pews, those people have to be FAMILIES. I think it is great we have many members that have attended our church for decades and who contribute large sums of money each week - no kids, established lives, retired in many cases - to projects that display their generosity. This past year, we (and several other Episcopalian churches) contributed tens of thousands to a Habitat for Humanity project. Only problem I had specifically was the family that got the home wasn't Episcopalian!

Great! Four churches contribute $100k and hundreds of manhours for ONE family, not Episcopalian!

How many families in those 4 churches are hurting financially? 10, 20? How about one month's rent/mortgage to help? How many families in those 4 churches don't have medical insurance and therefore don't get all the medical care they should? How many need prescriptions they can't afford? How many could use 24 hours away from their kids?

Camp Webb is the diocesan camp for kids. CJ has attended for a couple years and looks forward to it with great anticipation. The camp is slowly dying because...ta da....fewer kids are attending. Why are fewer kids attending? Because there are fewer kids in the pews! How about donating money to the camp so it is less expensive (it is pretty cheap now for 1 kid, but if you have a couple, the cost is going to be nearly $500 for the 6 days and 5 nights most camp weeks are.

Like the stereotypical cop or doctor that spends long hours at the job taking care of people but ignoring their own family, the Church is seeking to help people outside the pews and abandoning their own.

The mega-churches grow because their first, second and third goal is to take care of the people in the pews. Outreach starts at home. Until old-line churches learn this important lesson, the pews will continue to empty and the coffers....well, it is only a matter of time.

The Problem of Pain: Introduction - Part 2

2007-04-15T09:53:00.000-07:00

Lewis continues:

In what follows it must be understood that I am not primarily arguing the truth of Christianity but describing its origin - a task, in my view, necessary if we are to put the problem of pain in its right setting.

This is the first place, I think, that Lewis slips from his focus. He has stopped thinking about pain, and started thinking about suffering. We don't know if death is painful, or even if birth is. Newborns can't speak and well, the dead have stopped talking. We can certainly see and know that the process leading up to death is often painful - except in those rare instances where doctors tell us that death was instantaneous. I would suggest that both birth and death might elicit exactly the same expression - if possible - "OH?!"

In my story, the transition of Christ from the cross into death is rather abrupt. He is in pain, and then not. A short time later, Christ realizes he is alone, without the Father. It is a loss, a pain that is felt as the pain he felt on the Cross. On the Cross, Christ suffers. The physical pain is certainly one issue, but He yells on the Cross - not about the physical pain, but "My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me!?" It is the absence of God that causes Christ to cry out.

Lewis wants to equate pain with suffering. It is understandable, we do it all the time. However, pain, the physical result of hurt, is part of life. There is no need to explain it, answer it. The physical world functions in a way that living things often get in the way and get hurt in the process. If you step on a sharp rock in bare feet, you are not likely to look at God and ask why it had to happen. Lewis wants to talk about suffering but is stuck on pain. For Lewis, the problem with pain is that it exists. I can not imagine a universe of birth and death that could exist without it. Suffering may be a different matter.

Lewis wants to take us to a specific location, the root of good. He needs to take us there because without good, there is no bad. No evil. But getting from the foundation of humanity to good requires a few slights of hand.

In all developed religion we find three strands or elements, and in Christianity one more. The first of these is what Professor Otto calls the experience of the Numinous.

This experience, this awe, is excited by the Numinous.

What is certain is that now, at any rate, the numinous experience exists and that if we start from ourselves we can trace it a long way back.

Getting to the Numinous is an early human process of fear. We fear what we do not know, that fear turns to dread of things we fear in anticipation, and finally in awe, we feel something that goes beyond fear or dread, it is...small. Lewis calls it a profound disturbance. I, like many others, observe that if God did not exist, mankind would create him. Lewis does just this. It is a esponse to an awareness of the world and our place in it. Or, our apparent or perceived place in it.

Numinous comes from "why". Why did this person die and not that person? Why did the rains that always come, fail. In the absence of knowledge, an unseen force must be at work. The unexplainable becomes the Numinous - death by lion, explainable; death by lightning, not...hell, lightning is not explainable! But our ability to ask the question provokes the question. A gazelle does not ask why a lion takes it's herdmate.

We want justice, balance, fairness. We want events to having meaning. It seems that "life happens" is not enough for most people...despite the t-shirt sayings to the contrary. There are events that have results we don't like. We call these events bad. There are events that have results we like. We call these events good.

God is the creation of good. We like good. We want more good. Events that produce good will be repeated. Events that produce bad will be avoided. When similar events fail to produce good, or worse yet, produce bad, some kind of explanation is necessary. The Numinous gains currency. It might have takenmilenia, but over time, the Numinous would have grown.

We do not know how far back in human history this feeling goes. The earliest men almost certainly believed in things which would excite the feeling in us if we believed in them, and it seems therefore probable that numinous awe is as old as humanity itself. But our main concern is not with its dates. The important thing is that somehow or other it has come into existence, and is widespread, and does not disappear from the mind with the growth of knowledge and civilisation.

Lewis either lacks the knowledge or purposefully ignores it. First, Judaism is not the first monotheistic religion. Christianity is not the first religion based on a virgin birth and a resurrection. And atheism is growing. Religion goes farther back that our major religions might like to acknowledge. Knowledge is replacing the awe factor.

Now this awe is not the result of an inference from the visible universe. There is no possibility of arguing from mere danger to the uncanny, still less to the fully Numinous.

Just saying so does not make it so. I can easily argue that such a process is likely, even probable. Lewis can not imagine that it is possible to get to God from everyday experience UNLESS something inherent in us allows us to make a jump from fear to awe.

Finally;

You may say that is seems to you very natural that early man, being surrounded by real dangers, and therefore frightened, should invent the uncanny and the Numinous. In a sense it is, but let us understand what we mean. You feel it to be natural because, sharing human nature with your remote ancestors, you can imagine yourself reacting to perilous solitudes in the same way; and this reaction is indeed 'natural' in the sense of being in accord with human nature. But it is not in the least 'natural' in the sense that the idea of the uncanny or the Numinous is already contained in the idea of the dangerous, or that nay perception of danger or any dislike of the woulds and death which may entail could give the slightest conception of ghostly dread or numinous awe to an intelligence which did not already understand them. When man passes from physical fear to dread and awe, he makes a sheer jump, and apprehends something which could never be given, as danger is, by the physical facts and logical deductions from them.

Lewis acknowledges that as we are products of our ancestry, we are likely to share a natural affinity, a natural kinship, with those that came well before us. To say we understand early humans because as humans we can understand is the circular logic being stuck within the system causes. Lewis gives the bias a glancing blow. But he can not see the flaw in his logic. How did early humans deal with the GOOD things that happened for no apparent reason? If anything, he knows early humans were smart. One of them more than likely equated a random good with a random bad and coming from the same unknowable place.

Maybe I am being too hopeful. Maybe those early people took the good random events and just accepted them without question. Maybe they only were concerned with the bad random events. I don't think so. It seems to me that human nature is more interested in making good events repeat than in working to prevent bad events from happening. How else can you explain addictions?

Establishing that early humanity, inherent in our creation, had a predisposition to make a jump from bad events to the awe of the Numinous seems to ignore a good portion of what we know about early societies and human nature. Humans want good things to happen. Good was/is defined as having good shelter, good food and hopefully, good company. Bad was not having those things. If random chance exceeded the intellectual grasp of early humans, some unseen force was at work. Over 30 or 40,000 years, it is likely that entire systems of behavior grew around the occasional, repeatable, random event. Such as fire from the sky preceding cold, wet weather.

The Problem of Pain: Introduction - Part 1

2007-04-15T08:43:00.000-07:00

My friend pointed out that knowing the goal is part of understanding the process and how the result is perceived. I would add that if the knowledge or the perception you start with is flawed, even good goals and plans are likely to fail.

Lewis starts out:

Look at the universe we live in. By far the greatest part of it consists of empty space, completely dark and unimaginably cold. The bodies which move in this space are so few and so small in comparison with the space itself that even if every one them were known to be crowded as full as it could hold with perfectly happy creatures, it would still be difficult to believe that life and happiness were more than a by-product to the power that made the universe. As it is however, the scientists think it likely that very few of the suns of space - perhaps none of them except our own - have any planets: and in our own system it is improbable that any planet except the Earth sustains life.

There are two issues here. First is that Lewis is unaware that his own body is mostly empty space. The volume of space between the electrons and nucleus of each atom that makes up his body exceeds the actual volume of the particles themselves by many orders of magnitude. I doubt he would find himself lacking in substance despite the obvious volume of nothingness he is composed of. Ok, maybe a little tongue in cheek, but the second issue is more important - that there are few planets such that we may be the only one. He wrote Problem of Pain around 1940. Even then, the number of stars in the heavens numbered in the trillions was known. Although direct evidence of planets would take another 30-40 years, the idea that in the millions (probably billions) of galaxies, and the hundreds of millions (billions) of stars in each could be devoid of planets is so outlandish as to border on stupid. But, Lewis is a writer, and may have no real interest in the science of our universe, so I might forgive him such a position. But the problem is that such an opinion helps to form the foundation of what Lewis considers further.

The race is doomed. Every race that comes into being in any part of the universe is doomed; for the universe, they tell us, is running down, and will sometime be a uniform infinity of homogeneous matter at a low temperature. All
stories will come to nothing: all life will turn out in the end to have been a transitory and senseless contortion upon the idiotic face of infinite matter. If you ask me to believe that this is the work of a benevolent and omnipotent spirit, I reply that all the evidence points in the opposite direction. Either there is no spirit behind the universe, or else a spirit indifferent to good and evil, or else an evil spirit.

Lewis looks at the unknowable vastness of empty space, the futility of all endeavor as evidence that God can't exist, or if He did, that He was a evil spirit. It is a position the Children of the Sixties can relate to: why are we here? What is my purpose? Lewis answers not for himself, but for all living things: life is futile. A waste of effort. We are all doomed, and all our flailing about is for naught for it will all be nothing in the end. He leaves this line of thought there, but I consider one further point of bias. It may be inherent in most species, it is certainly prevalent in humans: what has been in the past, will be in the future. We are conditioned by the fact that yesterday the sun rose, and set, and today it rose so therefore it must set again. However, our recorded experience is limited - a couple thousand years on one planet, in one galaxy, in the face of billions of years of universe life - any suggestion that ANY part of our experience constitutes "normal" in the larger scheme of things is without merit.

There was one question which I never dreamed of raising. I never noticed that the very strength and facility of the pessimists' case at once poses us a problem. If the universe is so bad, or even half so bad, how on earth did human beings ever come to attribute it to the activity of a wise and good Creaters. Men are fools, perhaps; but hardly so foolish as that.

It appears that the Problem Lewis has is not with pain, or suffering, but with death. If everything ends, then what value did it have in existing? And in his mind, death is evil. Of course, there is no life without death, it is a consequence unavoidable. Even Christ died. However, God is eternal. Having no death, is God alive? (That is just a side thought!) Actually, Lewis avoids this line of thought for the more interesting idea of what is good.

For some reason, never addressed, Lewis considers God good but that is at odds with his perception that the Universe is evil. He wants to explore how man reached this conclusion.

At all times, then, an inference from the course of events in this world to the goodness and wisdom of the Creater would have been equally preposterous; and it was never made.

His point is that experience and knowledge could not have led us to the position that God was good. He omits the obvious that all our experience and knowledge could not have led us to the position that God existed at all. He doesn't want to go there, or doesn't consider the possibility.

I will admit I am average writer at best, but the following is very strange even to me:

To prehistoric man the neighbouring forest must have been infinite enough, and the utterly alient and infest which we have to fetch from the thought of cosmic rays and cooling suns, came snuffing and howling nightly to his very doors. Certainly at all periods the pain and waste of human life was equally obvious. Our own religion begins among the Jews, a people squeezed between great warlike empires, continually defeated and led captive, familiar as Poland or Armenia with the tragic story of the conquered. It is mere nonsense to put pain among the discoveries of science. Lay down this book and reflect for five minutes on the fact that all the great religions were first preached, and long practised, in a world without chloroform.

Emphasis mine. Where did that statement come from? Did he have an entire thought erased from the draft, leaving the highlighted line adrift?

To Lewis, the study of pain is not to be left to science. It is the perview of religion. Pain can not be measured or even described. It is in the same category as beauty. Subject to the same limitations as any other subjective topic, one person's pain is another person's pleasure. Therefore, it must be put into the context of perception rather than a field of study. Pain is not about what is happening to you, but how you feel about it.

The Problem of Pain, Preface

2007-04-14T20:35:00.000-07:00

I am in a discussion with a dear friend about my story (39 Hours) He recommended to me a book by C.S. Lewis called The Problem of Pain. He said my story reminded him of the book.

Thursday I had a chance to pick it up while at a book store. Almost immediately, I wanted to answer/rebutt/comment on points raised by Lewis. But, I didn't own the book, didn't have a pen and had nothing to write with! Yesterday, I bought the book so I could work it!

There is a ton of material there, but it is important to set the situation up. The Problem Lewis is addressing is suffering. In a world created by a loving God, why is there suffering - specifically, pain? How could a loving God allow pain, allow his beloved creations feel pain, suffer? Lewis does ask his readers to note that his is just a layman, no particular training or education worthy of addressing this issue other than as his own opinion. Consider me such a layperson responding to his attempt.

Also on Thursday, after having read 70-80 pages of the book at the bookstore, I was commenting on it to a friend who happened to be there also. I said I disagreed with the characterization that pain is inherent in the world and was rightly called on it. I didn't have a good answer then, but have since at least begun to have one.

I want to distingush between pain and hurt. Not so easily done as we tend to use them interchangeably. In general use, pain is what we feel, hurt is something that happens to someone. I don't care for that too much. I have always said that pain is the bodys way of saying stop doing that. Let me offer an experiment you can try at home. You need a friend you can trust for this!

Have them pinch you on the arm. OUCH! Right? Ok, after about 30 seconds, the pain will begin to fade, have them slap you on the other arm. HEY! Quick, does the pinch still hurt? Bet you forgot it for a second. Last part: have them pinch you but not let go....have them hold it firmly until it actually starts to go numb a little. Now have them let go. Did you notice the pain got worse after they let go?

The first pinch was hurt. The slap was hurt. The held pinch was pain. Pain hurts, then as long as it goes on, we begin to become numb to it, til it is released and then it flares again, despite the source being gone. Hurt happens, pain persists.

Hurt is inherent in life. Things happen. Pain however is not inherent. It is the result of something that can be moderated, even eliminated or prevented. I am going to come back to this, but pain is always the result of choice.

Annual Easter Post

2007-03-18T20:04:00.000-07:00

The false doctrine of too many choices

2006-12-10T14:58:00.000-08:00

Cross posted to Moderate Mainstream...

This morning's sermon at church reflected, in part, upon the problem of too many choices. Although not directly related to the subject matter, the Pastor commented on how we in America have such a bounty of, well, everything, that we lack the emptiness necessary for a longing for God.

Ignoring the religious issues she was trying to pinpoint, she noted that Tofler in his Future Shock predicted that our society would reach a point where people would recoil from the excess of choices. Over the years, his point of view has been regurgitated over and over again to promote either an economic or political position usually supporting some kind of restriction on freedom.

What was interesting to me was the echo I heard of Joe Biden this morning on TW. His concern was that people in the Middle East didn't have the same kind of definition about freedom that we did, and we might not like the kind of freedom they want. He feared that President Bush, naively, thought they did.

I want to be clear, if my subject title failed to be, that the very concept of too many choices is false. Let me start with an example:

It is 10:30pm tonight. You can go to bed and get some sleep; stay up and watch TV, stay up and read; stay up and have some intimate time with a spouse/partner; stay up and play a game; stay up and blog; stay up and eat; go out and party; what you say? too many choices?

Nonsense, the choice is to go to bed or stay awake. If you choose to go to bed, sleep is soon to follow. If you choose not to, then you have other choices.

A second example (one used on me many years ago by someone that wanted to impose limits on the number of cereals available (I kid you not...)

Walking down the cereal aisle there are literally a hundred different choices. No one can reasonably make an informed choice on each one. Therefore, we need to limit the number of cereals to one or two in each category.

I have three criteria for a morning cereal: it has to have sugar already on it (I hate having to add my own); it has to have at least 5 servings (and since I average 10oz each morning, that means more than 50oz) and it has to cost around 10 cents an oz. There are three that meet those criteria, Frosted Flakes, Frosted Cheerios and Kellogg's Raisin Bran. It takes me about 10 minutes a year to verify that nothing has changed in the aisle and those three remain viable choices. On sale, Frosted Mini Wheats and Lucky Charms add some variety.

The first thing I listen to when someone tells me there are too many choices, is what choices I have available to me, they want to limit. This morning, my Pastor wanted us to consider spending a little more money on church campaign items rather than presents to friends and family. We have so many competitors for our dollars, shouldn't we limit the ones that make us feel good, and help those more unfortunate than ourselves? (Didn't like the construction of that sentence? Preferred, "less fortunate". Tough, my choice!)

The problem most people have that complain there are too many choices is they don't like the choices other people are making. Rather than complain about their choices (and in doing so question their freedom to make their own choices), they complain there were too many choices to begin with. If we limit the choices to a few, then more people would choose their choice.

What makes people feel overwhelmed by choices? Lack of purpose. I walk into the cereal aisle with a clear idea of what I am looking for. The vast number of choices fail my criteria on more than one issue. Knowing what I am looking for helps me to make my choices easily.

The money I earn has a specific purpose. Demands on me to spend it a particular way fail to sway me at all because I already know where it is going. Bush chose to deal with Iraq, many on the left offered up "other choices" so as to distract from his purpose. When that failed, the next argument was "too many choices" expressed as "We can't be the world's policeman."

Externally, there can never be too many choices. With 6 billion people on the earth, every option will have some that prefer it. The more choices, the more freedom people have. It is only the lack of will, the lack of purpose that create in people a frustration with the choices available to them. And for others, the cornucopia of choices means less people will join them in their choice, and that freedom isn't the same freedom they wish others to have.

Stewardship?

2006-11-13T08:25:00.000-08:00

The vineyard owner had 1000 employees. Each was assigned a specific area of vines to maintain and harvest. The owner was very generous with his employees, allowing them to sell a portion of their harvest for their own use. They could select the grapes they chose for themselves and the rest were sold for the vineyard owners coffers.

After a time, the vineyard owner had much wealth, but sought to expand his land holdings. So, he told his employees that he required them to harvest a percentage of the vines for him first, the remainder would be allowed to be harvested as before.

Many employees were very upset and he was furious with them. "Do I not treat you well? Do I not allow you to harvest for yourselves first and me second? What is this little I ask of my OWN vines that you should deny me?"

He used the first harvests to purchase more lands and hire more employees, and his wealth grew more. After some years, production began to slow and some vines were to be destroyed. The owner withheld a percentage of production from all employees in order to replace the losses for those with no vines to manage/harvest. The employees were very upset and the owner was again furious with them. "Why do you deny the assistance I offer to those with less? Why is this upsetting? Do you not want to help your fellow employees?"

And after a time his wealth grew. And the employees were embittered with him and caused his vines to diminish and fail. He demanded more and more from those with good vines to support those with failing vines until all the employees were failing to maintain the vines and the vineyard failed.

The owner took his wealth and left the vines to rot and all the employees were left destitute.

Next time you are told that stewardship is a matter of supporting a community, ask yourself how your tithe is different than tax collections.

A call to serve

2006-09-03T21:32:00.000-07:00

One of the lessons I learned many years ago while involved in a fundi church was that you could tell if someone was really called to serve in some capacity, it would not be a burden on them. Our church is involved in building a home with Habitat for Humanity and based on my previous experience with a hammer, I was asked to participate (back in the planning process) and I declined. Now, several months later, funds raised and work planning underway, I was again approached by the person leading our church's effort. I flat turned him down. He looked very disappointed but I learned my lesson years ago. I will not be burdened by a call meant for someone else.

Don't bother with the cheap shot that maybe I am just ignoring a call for my own selfish reasons. Remember, I don't believe in getting called in the first place.

On a slightly different topic. I had the thought that Christ did not create division within the Jewish community. This ties in with the thought that speaking out or staking out a position that causes division is not of god. The sword of the Word does not cleave a man into good parts and bad parts. It marks one side for what it is. Christ called the evil, evil. He called the good, good. The division already existed, many people just didn't want to acknowledge it. A similar problem exists today. Bush is calling evil, evil. His words do not make something or someone evil. His words do not create divisions. He simply acknowledges the division that is already there.

Evil

2006-03-31T08:22:00.000-08:00

[cross posted to Moderate Mainstream ]

Last night I marveled at the number of people that defend the indefensible.

On the radio, someone was talking about amnesty and registering illegals and all I could think of is gun control. If only the good people registered their guns, all the criminals would still be out there with guns. If all the good illegal (oxymoron?) aliens register, what will we do with all the bad illegal aliens? The marches going on against immigration reform - would anyone else find a march by looters demanding the abolishment of theft laws absurd? Illegal immigrants are proven law breakers. I would like to say that anyone arrested and brought before a judge for breaking a law "with good reason" will still have to pay a penalty but...

A version of Jessica's Law was passed in Ohio over strong opposition. I know the argument - mandatory sentencing takes the justice out of the system. In many places I agree with that, however, as long as judges continue to consider predators of children to have a momentary lapse in judgment, I want to prevent such lapses from happening on the bench.

NAMBLA. Is there any reason this organization exists? Why hasn't the population of this country risen up and lynched every single one of the members? I generally am against vigilatism, but please, someone...anyone?

Here in Madison on April 4th, a measure is on the ballot calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. There are signs all over this town calling on voters to say yes. I wanted to buy a dozen cans of yellow spray paint and paint yellow stripes on every sign I could find - two problems, one, someone is going to remember a woman buying a dozen cans of yellow spray paint when the news reports the 'vandalism' and two, it would take more than 100 cans to get all the signs...

Jill Carroll was released and proclaimed that her captors 'treated her well'. Being kidnapped, having your translator killed in front of you, being forced to plead for your life on video and being held for 3 months against your will IS NOT BEING TREATED WELL.

Islam is NOT a civilized religion. Some, maybe a majority, of Moslems are civilized. But any government or religion that seeks to kill someone for changing their religion IS NOT CIVILIZED.

As a mob, and this country is no better than a mob at this time, we have lost the capacity to recognize evil. Even the concept of evil is mocked or dismissed.

Looters are excused because they only wanted food and water.
Illegal immigrants are excused because they only want jobs.
Kidnappers are excused because 'we' invaded their country.
Child rapists are excused because they need treatment.
Murderers are excused because 'we' supported Israel.
Religions are excused because 'we' lack sensitivity.
Countries are excused because they are 'democratic'.

Evil does not start as a full blown country spanning movement, it starts small, day by day eroding our will to address it. I am not religious but if you can not see the evil growing in this country, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

** By the way, if your first thought was of a political party or politician, you are clueless ***

Acceptance of Evil

2006-03-23T13:46:00.000-08:00

When I was a Christian, I spent a lot of time studying Revelation and reading a great deal about various interpretations of prophecy. So, despite my current beliefs, I was very interested in the Left Behind series and we purchased each book as it was published. The story pretty much brushes by the one thing I think most people wonder about when studying Revelation: how do so many people all but ignore two issues: first, millions of Christians disappearing in the Rapture; second, evil is apparent but most people embrace it anyway.

First, the majority of Christians either do not know, or believe in the Rapture so that is an issue primarily among fundamentalists. But the second is important. It would appear that people willingly set aside their own morality and accept an evil premise to base their faith on. As a rational person, I could never see how that could be reconciled with what I know of the people in my life.

However. The last three years have taught me that very good people could easily, with almost no effort whatsoever, set aside all pretense at morality and Christian faith and embrace evil as good.

Hostages 'released' in Iraq

Three Christian activists were rescued from captivity today. Their friend and co-activist from the US was found tortured and murdered last month. The organization they belonged to issued a press release that 1) called the rescue, a 'release'; 2) blamed the US and coalition partners for creating the environment which necessitated their kidnapping; and 3) called the murderers of their co-activist and friend, people of great faith.

Folks. Evil is when someone is kidnapped (you know, taken at gunpoint against your will), tortured and murdered. To consider such people as would do so, people of great faith, is to accept evil as a viable and acceptable variation of faith so much so as to call into question what real difference there is in following Jesus or Satan...

To these people, CPT and their many friends and political supporters on the Left, George Bush is evil and THEREFORE, everyone opposed to him is GOOD. Such moral depravity surely proceeds the End Times.

My 12 Days of Christmas

2005-12-22T07:40:00.000-08:00

On the first day of Christmas, I gave a partridge in a pear tree:
Be true to yourself, know who you are and that you are worthy

On the second day of Christmas, I gave two turtle doves:
Loving another is a gift with no boundries

On the third day of Christmas, I gave three French hens:
Faith in ourselves, hope for the future and charity to others

On the fourth day of Christmas, I gave four calling birds:
Reach out to others, tell your story, listen to theirs

On the fifth day of Christmas, I gave five golden rings:
You are not perfect, others are not perfect, accept imperfection

On the sixth day of Christmas, I gave six geese a-laying:
The universe is awe inspiring, take a look

On the seventh day of Christmas, I gave seven swans a-swimming:
Goals worth striving for: wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety.

On the eighth day of Christmas, I gave eight maids a-milking:
There are others less fortunate, one of our purposes to to help them

On the ninth day of Christmas, I gave nine ladies dancing:
When we live life fully, others see: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control

On the tenth day of Christmas, I gave ten lords a-leaping:
Respect for yourself and others is earned by doing the right things

On the eleventh day of Christmas, I gave eleven pipers piping:
Good people make good friends make life good

On the twelfth day of Christmas, I gave twelve drummers drumming:
Faith is an acknowledgement that we do not, and can not know it all, there is more to life than what we see

For those of you that take a perverse pride in reading my posts (you are NOT agnostic) you may be surprised by some or all of what you read here...however, I wondered...what do the gifts in the 12 Days of Christmas mean:

A partridge in a pear tree: True Love refers to God

Two turtle doves: refers to the Old and New Testaments

Three French hens: refers to Faith, Hope and Charity, the Theological Virtues

Four calling birds: Birds refers to the Four Gospels and/or the Four Evangelists

Five golden rings: refers to the first Five Books of the Old Testament, the "Pentateuch", which gives the history of man's fall from grace.

Six geese a-laying: refers to the six days of creation

Seven swans a-swimming: refers to the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, the seven sacraments

Eight maids a-milking: refers to the eight beatitudes

Nine ladies dancing: refers to the nine Fruits of the Holy Spirit

Ten lords a-leaping: refers to the ten commandments

Eleven pipers piping: refers to the eleven faithful apostles

Twelve drummers drumming: refers to the twelve points of doctrine in the Apostle's Creed

If you do not know what the Fruits, gifts, beattitudes or the Apostle's Creed are, they are easily googled...

Finally, as I have just formulated the above, I intend to post here during the course of the next year what I did on the Day of Christmas each month to honor that day. I intend to act on the first Tuesday of each month...you may ask why the first Tuesday....simple 1st 2uesday 12....corny I know..

Oh...this years 'cost' for the 12 days of gifts: $18,348.87
source: PNC Christmas Price Index

Let's Pretend...

2005-12-16T07:20:00.000-08:00

Let us pretend that religions are true...the things they believe and are written of are true.

Christians (Bible believing ones) have Revelation. During the last days, there is 7 years of 'hell on Earth' during which time non-believers have to suffer many disasters. Believers are spare by being "caught up in a twinkling of an eye"....the Rapture.

Ok, shift focus.

2300 years ago, the Aztecs created their calendar. Without going into all the specifics, a particular event marks the END of their calendar. That event is the crossing of the galatic center by the Earth's axis. That event takes place on December 21, 2012.

Let us say that the end of time (as far as the Aztecs were concerned) is 12/21/12.

Subtract the 7 years of Tribulation....12/21/05.

What are you doing next Thursday?

Design?

2005-12-14T09:18:00.000-08:00

Intelligent design = creationism.

I was born of my parents, they of theirs, and theirs of theirs and so forth and so on until:

Intelligent design/creationism - Adam and Eve

Evolution - further and further back in time, lower and lower on the hierarchy of life.

Intelligent design/creationism claims that humans erupted out of the soil fully formed and operational. No trial and error. Why?

A piece in Redstate.org on ID had just a moment of clarity for me...motivation. What was the motivation of the designer? This recalls my own disgust at people that wander around their lives asking "why I am here?". You are here because your parents had sex. Whether their goal was a child or not, ask them, they and only they have that answer. For me, it is enough that they had a child, me. My purpose in life is just that MINE. It is not theirs, though they certainly had hopes for me.

For those supporting ID/Creationism, our purpose, his/her motivation was to have 'partners'? Soul mates? Worshippers?

Would not a child be offended to learn that the goal of the parents was to have a servant, an honored one, but no less a servant? Of their own free will?

And what of Cro-magnan, or Neanderthal? What was their purpose? Were they descendants of Adam and Eve? Or were they evolutions attempt at mimicking God's humanity.

Three questions:
1. What will be the impact of contact with another lifeform from another planet?
2. Why with all the interest in afterlife contact has none of them suggested that religion was right or wrong?
3. Is the fear of death the result of cultural bias or is it inherent? (From an intellectual point of view rather than a survival instinct issue).

Survival of the fittest

2005-11-20T14:38:00.000-08:00

Today the teaching was about culling. Christ would separate the goats from the sheep. And as I listened something occurred to me. Those that want evolution to go away, to be replaced by either creationism or intelligent design, really have a problem with survival of the fittest. The idea that the weak and less capable will not survive, SHOULDN'T survive just cuts across every fiber of a Christian's grain. Worse...how could a just God have created such a system?

I am quietly becoming less tolerant of a religious perspective: A large group in our church is upset about Wal-Mart, ignoring the benefits that the company offers to communities (jobs, taxes, lower prices). A very well respected doctor in the congregation truly believes George Bush lied, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. Can people with such a distorted view of the real world actually be trusted to have a valid opinion on important matters? Am I being way too harsh?

Radical

2005-10-27T21:34:00.000-07:00

As indicated in the previous post, Harris does not like the term radical or even fundamentalist. He makes the point (and I agree) that those that we call radical are actually those that have not betrayed their faith for the comfort of our more liberal society. (Yes, Christian and Moslem alike).

Those that embrace their faith totally are considered extreme...but failure to adhere to ALL the tenets of the religion is a betrayal. First a person betrays reason to hold beliefs that are fundamentally irrational, and then s/he betrays the faith by not embracing all of it. The irrational becomes devoid of the capacity for any reason. Why do we even consider LISTENING to people such as these?

People have been very concerned with Bush and his reliance on faith to guide him in his executive duties. But if you were to suggest any of those people were antagonist towards religion in general, many (if not most) of those people would quickly proclaim their own faith and religious credentials.

Radicals are the true believers, the strict adherents to their faith. They are marginalized by those outside of the religion but those inside the religion, much to their own dismay, defend them! What choice do they have? (Before anyone gets on their high horse, if the Inquisition had the tools of today, the slaughter would be as great if not greater than we are facing now. Christians had their own bloody period when 'infidels' were killed with almost giddy abandon.) The radical must be defended. The defender must either accept that the radical has a clear and correct position, or must acknowledge the shortcomings of their own faithfulness.

Even the faithless have their own radicals...

Traitor? Betrayer? Enabler?

2005-10-27T20:45:00.000-07:00

Victoria bought Sam Harris' The End of Faith for me....she's like that. Well, it took me almost 2 weeks to read. Very dense. But the biggest reason it took so long was that almost every paragraph I would stop and go "YEA!".

Harris just rips into those with faith, savaging Moslems, Jews and Christians alike. But after 1/2 the book, I realized that the people he was most upset with, were people like me.

We who have tossed off the shackles of faith but allow others to wallow in the mire. In my previous post I used the situation of a plane crashing. We can not throw the passengers out of the crashing plane, they will not go. They will fight tooth and nail to stay in the plane because there is a slight chance, maybe no more than .0001% that they will survive, but if they jump without a parachute, they will die. People can not give up on faith because to do so means they will die and very few people like that idea, even fewer look forward to it.

Of course one of the problems with our general society is that people are willing to tolerate a certain level of bad things happening to themselves and others because the afterlife will be better. If there were no afterlife, well then, people would have to make things better here because here is all we have.

How many suicide bombers would there be if they didn't believe they were going somewhere better upon their death?

The primary issue in The End of Faith is that those with dangerous beliefs about dying and faith (those that think killing is not only sanctioned but encouraged) once could be allowed to go to their bitter end in relative isolation, but no more. Radical (and he does not like that word because it suggests that it lets others with similar beliefs but less enthusiasm off the hook) Moslems can now jump a plane and within hours be anywhere on the planet with weapons much worse than a knife or gun.

The problem with ME is that I do not call those with faith on their irrationality when it pops up. Victoria is the exception but even there I don't dare go 'overboard' in the interest of familia harmony.

Many friends and family will recall a time when I proclaimed their faith was insufficient, that God was calling to them to quit being lukewarm. An attempt to now proclaim that even their lukewarmness is now affront to all that is rational would be met with a similar shaking of the head and overt dismissal as Tracy goes off the deep end again.

The plane is crashing but the passengers feel safe and secure. That the passengers would allow a 'lunatic' to shout and demand everyone jump off is highly unlikely. So what is the choice? Continue to allow friends and family, our entire society, to continue in their comfortable disdain of rationality? Continue to betray our own sense of reason and quietly accept everyone else's incoherence? Or turn our back on reason altogether and just accept that for 95% of the people, faith is more important that reason, that beliefs in the impossible are more important than facts, that religion is more sustaining than civilization?

I don't want people to fear death...that is like fearing breathing. Unfortunately, those that have NO fear of death are exactly the people that right now threaten so many of us. But people need the parachute, they will not jump without it. And given the overwhelming appearance that those that actually do an indepth study of religion STILL adhere to their beliefs, even rational discourse is not possible. Harris believes that no amount of facts, logic or reason will change a single mind devoted to faith. From the moment you claim not to believe, people of faith are on the defensive. The only people that reach the point of abandoning faith are those that do so themselves and not because someone convinced them.

There are not even 3 people that I think could read Harris' book and get any value out of it. What does that say about the range of friends I have?

What do I do with my new found ammunition? Well, it appears my only choice for now, is you!

Why do we have faith? Religion?

2005-10-21T19:08:00.000-07:00

If God didn't exist, we would have to invent him/her. Why? Why do people need faith/belief?

If there were no God, no afterlife, then everything we do here is a waste...
If there is no God, no judgment, then those that live against the rules will not get their just desserts in the end...
If there is no God, no heaven, then all those that have died, are gone forever...
If there is no God, no afterlife, then when I die.....

People face these situations and the alternative to God and an afterlife is intolerable.

A friend suggested to me yesterday that we could have a conversation about God and the afterlife when I was on my deathbed. She has a point. Many people that profess no belief in God or the afterlife have "deathbed conversions". It is obvious that the fear of death can only be diminished by the hope that death is not final.

I am going to start a series of posts but I am going start with some guidelines.

You can scream and point to all kinds of evidence that the plane is going to crash, but NO ONE is going to jump out of the plane without a parachute. Unfortunately, people will prefer to die safe in their beliefs than to abandon them.

This is the failure of atheists. They stand on the crashing plane with their self righteous position that at least they will die knowing the truth. Of course, everyone else thinks they're nuts because THEY know the REAL truth. In the end, they all die and those of us left to clean up the mess are no better off.

In Carl Sagan's Contact, Dr Arroway is asked if she believes 95% of the worlds population is delusional. She can't answer yes. Because the 95% believe that because 95% believe, they are correct. To those 95%, the belief in a higher power is so self evident that to dispute it is to be a nut case not worthy of further conversation.

My position is the result of DECADES of effort to set aside 27 years of indoctrination. I can never be completely free of the years of education and years of immersion in religion. I am who I am BECAUSE of that immersion. If we had an island and put children there who have never been given knowledge of God, would they form a belief in "God"? Even my decision to abandon God is tainted by the knowledge that religion and this society drilled into me.

Truth

2005-09-13T08:27:00.000-07:00

Part of the sermon on Sunday got me off on a tangent....the preacher used the word Truth...with the capital T. Here is where I went with it...

Truth is not determined by belief or faith. Truth is self-evident...you need no special understanding or insight to determine Truth. Let me give you a counter example.

Killing is bad. There is Truth to this....or is there? If I kill someone in self-defense, is it bad? The answer is YES! The point is that it is not WRONG. Of course some will suggest it is wrong, but I am going to ignore such idiots.

The Constitution states the following are Truths that are self-evident:
1. all men are created equal
2. all are endowed with certain unalienable rights, among these rights are
i. life; ii. liberty; iii. pursuit of happiness

Are all men created equal? No. My brother Billy had muscular dystrophy...he would never run.

Are rights unalienable? If you agree with me that rights are earned with the active engagement of responsibilities, then to fail those responsibilities is to abrogate those rights.

Can you tell me a Truth? Are facts Truths? I would argue that only facts can be Truths....but even then, a limited set of facts would qualify.

People complain that we live in a time of moral relativism (as it applies to the application of Truth) as if it were a new and bad thing. I would suggest that the only one that does NOT, nor ever has, lived in a period of moral relativism is God.

However, if Scripture is to be believed, God certainly takes advantage of moral relativism. "Thou shall not kill" ...unless I tell you to enter a land and kill all you find there..

Truth is one of those concepts that seems to have been given much more force than is justified. Since Sunday I have tried to determine a single unassailable Truth. I am still trying...

What if we are wrong?

2005-08-24T18:33:00.000-07:00

A long time ago I was a born-again christian....hush...one of the phrases used to promote evangelicalism was the idea that if there were no God but you acted as though there were, what would you lose? What if there was a God but you acted as though there was not? The point was you had nothing to lose in believing, but potentially everything to lose if you didn't.

There is no logic to a belief in a God. Episcopalians base their religion on three foundations: Scripture, tradition and reason. I dispute that. Scripture can be shown to be in error. Tradition is easy to dismiss (slavery anyone?). And reason...well, if you can not rely on the information that forms the basis of your religion, what reasoning is there to use?

A friend suggested that I might be a closet Buddhist. I don't think so, but I have not spent any time considering its "foundation". Why is it necessary to have a belief in the Divine?

In my other blog, moderate mainstream, I posted a piece on Pacificism. Victoria has taken issue with it directly and through a posted comment. But it did lead me to some other material online regarding pacificism and one comment is relevant here:

The gentleman suggested that violence should be met with pacificism as the only workable solution. Violence against violence is promoted as justice in some circles, but he felt that justice was God's to mete out. And while he felt bad about the people being slaughtered in Rwanda, Bosnia or Iraq, he felt they would get their justice in God's time and we should not 'interfere'.

What if he is wrong? What if there is no God to impose justice in some afterlife? Then the murder of millions will have been justified...how? Of course his position is comforting to him...but if he stands in front of God and holds that position and God says part of His will was the prevention of murder....what then?

I acknowledge that I do not KNOW if God exists in any of the forms proclaimed by the religions of the world...but then...neither do they.

Intelligent Design - Post 3

2005-08-07T13:56:00.000-07:00

Post 3 of 3:

I am unwilling to concede any component of intelligent design. Until we have visited...let us say....10,000 other worlds and at least 500 planets with life, we have no idea if this planet we live on is either unique, or commonplace. Further, until we see at least a percentage of the universe (I am speaking in whole numbers here...starting with 1%) we can not KNOW virtually anything.

At this point, intelligent design is pagan worship with a new name...nothing more.

Intelligent Design - Post 2

2005-08-07T13:49:00.000-07:00

Post 2 of 3:

The primary area that those that support intelligent design use is evolution. That there are in fact gaps in our understanding or in the theory that only intelligent design can fill.

What about quantum mechanics? Does intelligent design also deal with the gaps in our knowledge in physics? Does intelligent design fulfill the missing pieces?

The second question I have (the first being in post 1) is what is the goal of intelligent design?

Intelligent Design - Post 1

2005-08-07T13:46:00.000-07:00

Post 1 of 3

Intelligent Design. If there is in fact intelligent design involved in the universe, I ask the following question: WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE?

After all, if there is intelligent design, there must be purpose....

The value of Religion

2005-07-30T20:21:00.000-07:00

Do people embrace religion in order to cope with the issue of death and an afterlife? To rephrase, are those that embrace religion doing so to have a way of dealing with death?

I still am not asking it right...trying to be cute...does religion sooth fears about death? If so, I don't think it is working.... It seems to me that the ones that fear death the most, are those that practice religion.

Is a fear of death more prevelant among people that practice a religion than among those that do not?

Fear of dying....

2005-07-20T20:18:00.000-07:00

Just thinkin...

Do you have a fear of dying? I once heard, and I agree with, the idea that people threaten you with the thing THEY fear the most. If someone threatens you with disclosing something embarrassing, they fear embarrassment. So, someone that threatens you with death, they fear death. I have no fear of dying other than it might happen sooner than I might expect and there are some things I still want to accomplish - like my books....I am on chapter 12 of 27 of one, only outlined another and if I could just finish editing the other.... still...

I don't fear it....why should I? After all, I AM GOING TO DIE! So are YOU!

Isn't that what religion is all about? Dealing with the fear of death....no one wants this to be all there is....people want the bad people to ultimately get what's coming to them....

Is religion about the fear of dying? Should we fear....breathing? Eating? How about sleeping? After all, sleeping is like dying....

Just thinkin...

ps...I believe in ghosts...

Just who's religion is it anyway?

2005-07-19T20:01:00.000-07:00

Two events today:

First, I used to participate in an online discussion about Episcopalian issues, I left because....well, I'm not, and I got too busy to continue in arguments with people. However, Victoria continues to be part of that group and so I occasionally see what is going on there. There is one person there that seems to believe that most of the problems of the world start, grow and continue because of the existence of the United States....and she was born here. So be it. She was the one I had most arguments with, and she is on a tear recently about...welll, we are bad people, but primarily because of "fascist Christians".

Second, someone on the same group found a report that outlined serious issues of separation of church and state at the AirForce Academy. You must understand, that when I was in the Air Force, I had the opportunity to be at the Academy on several occasions and I hold that institution in very high esteem. The report seriously upset Victoria because of what it bodes for us. Our daughter has suggested that she would like to fly jets and would be willing to serve to get the opportunity. The Academy is obviously a first choice. I too am upset by some of the items brought up because first and foremost, my time in the service was about SERVICE TO MY COUNTRY. Not my god. We might have suggested that the civilians that gave us our orders were sometimes stupid, but you can believe that the vast majority (90+%) were absolutely committed to civilian, secular rule. For an honorable institution like the Academy to abandon SERVICE TO COUNTRY to embrace SERVICE TO GOD is to descreate everything it stands for. To those officers charged with leading the Academy, here is my pledge, I shall stand against you as long as you forget your oath.

So, my problem. I have suggested that Moslems need to stand up and out those that would destroy Islam and innocents. I am now calling on Christians to do the same with members of their own religion intent on destroying the United States.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AND FANATICAL MOSLEMS. You seek to force society to bend to the strictures of your religion. Those Christians that proclaim the religious right is out of hand better understand that those people are your brothers and sisters in Christ.

The writer of the article complained that "God and Country" are the most obscene words in our language, I would suggest that "In God's Name" are worse.

UPDATE - 7/19

I don't like to post information found elsewhere, but to make a point:

from a Christian adoption agency in Mississippi...

"It has been our understanding that Catholicism does not agree with our statement of faith," Bethany state director Karen Stewart wrote. "Our practice to not accept applications from Catholics was an effort to be good stewards of an adoptive applicant's time, money and emotional energy."

Can you say Sunni and Shi'ite?

I equated Evangelical Christians with Moslem fanatics, I want to be more precise:

Evangelical Christians are EXACTLY the same as Wahhabis in Islam.

Clear? Good.

Am I a secularist?

2005-07-12T20:06:00.000-07:00

Hmmm...let me ponder. I have a big problem with religion, but not spirituality. I have a problem with theocracy, but not a belief in higher powers. See a theme?

When religion or beliefs begin to guide and form structures in the laws of a society, I have a problem. If the only true expression of Islam is a theocracy, then I believe such an expression is at fundamental odds with freedom. If my normal every day activities (a job, driving a car, wearing shorts in the summer) are an affront to Moslem sensibilities, then those sensibilities infringe on my rights if they are enforced - IN ANY MANNER - upon me. The very freedoms that helped Western nations prosper would be the most in danger by a theocracy of any persuasion.

A journalist from the UK interviewed a 20 yr old Moslem intent on becoming a suicide bomber. One of the most telling comments was the 20 yr olds belief that the United States and the other 'western' nations had brought 'modernity' to the Moslem world thereby polluting it. People, such a mindset CAN NOT be reasoned with...there is no common ground to start from.

Moslems that believe as that 20 yr old are worse than Luddites.

I have picked on Islam but the Jews in Israel, the Catholics in Italy and Ireland, and the Born-Agains here are the same type of people, the ONLY difference is the level of damage they are causing. -- PLEASE --- not ALL Jews, Catholics, born-agains and Moslems are prone to such fixations but to think Moslems are unique it to ignore much of the history of the last 100 years.

So....I am opposed to all religion as part of the government - any government (because countries run by theocracy must export their beliefs in order to justify them). However, the study of religion would cause most rational people to run fleeing from religion for their very lives.

Is it possible for a person that holds religious beliefs to be rational in a discussion of the merits of religion in education and government? I don't think so...but I could be wrong....anyone?

The Age of the Koran

2005-07-08T12:57:00.000-07:00

In the name of God

A dangerous position. How many times must the world hear this? The Jews did it. The Christians did it. The Moslems are doing it. What you say? Mainstream Islam has nothing to do with the fanatics that are killing innocents you say? Maybe so. But what are you doing to stop it?

The secular community is getting tired of hearing that the fanatics are just that, they do not represent 'true' Islam. Oh? I see lots of marches throughout the Middle East in protest against the terrorists....I see lots of marches in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia condemning the violence..

No, what I hear is "Israel....."
What I hear is "Iraq....."

What I hear is excuses. If the Moslem community wants to have the advantages of democratic freedoms, they better start living up to the responsibilities of secular society.

Imans that stand in the safety of mosques and proclaim the dangers of the West SUPPORT TERRORISTS. And until that stops, people that seek freedom and democracy for all the peoples of the world will continue to wonder if Islam has reached a level a maturity that warrants inclusion in the secular world of adults.

I had a "Is this all there is? " moment

2005-05-26T07:43:00.000-07:00

In reading the Science and Religion book, you know at some point they had to bring up the entire idea of an afterlife as just wishful thinking.

As opposed to religion as I am, and have been, I have been unwilling to let go of the idea of an afterlife and I wondered if I was being true to my own convictions. If there is an afterlife, why can't it be like Christian Heaven? Why can't it be like Islam's Paradise? Does MY particular version of an afterlife make my position any less coherent than another "religion" because, let's face it, my beliefs constitute a religion of one.

So, calling into question any concept of an afterlife, I considered that ....welll..... this is it....when I am done, I'm done. But! I had an "AH HA!" recovery.

You have heard of stories of people doing superhuman things when threatened. Where does that strength come from? No mere scientific analysis will be able to explain it. Is it possible that science can not explain everything? Well, yes, I have (as many others have) already conceded such. Isn't it possible that we are more than the sum of our parts? Is it possible that coherent energy could be intelligent life? We haven't even touched the surface of the universe to know what we don't know yet.

I am not ready to concede that Heaven exists, but I will concede that "versions" of an afterlife are possible BECAUSE I believe that we ARE the more than the sum of our parts and that science when faced with the unexplainable is often as quick to hide it's head in the sand as the religious are to proclaim Divine Intervention.

Why God?

2005-05-24T12:00:00.000-07:00

Ok, science does not have all the answers. It is working on it, but it may take another 10 or 100 thousand years - you know we actually have to go out there and look around first.

But does that mean that in areas where science is missing an answer, religion must supply it?

The Earth revolves around the Sun! bzzzzzz

The Earth is 6,000 years old! bzzzzzz

Adam was the first man! bzzzzzz

Everything you ever wanted to know about evil, you can find by eating an apple! bzzzzz

Seizures are the work of evil spirits! bzzzzzz

Every human life is sacred! bzzzzzz

Science explains life, religion explains how to live it! bzzzzz

Here is a phrase scientists should use more, "I don't know".

Why do scientists believe?

2005-05-23T08:13:00.000-07:00

I have continued to read the essays in the book Science and Religion and can not help but wonder exactly why scientists have a need to associate their beliefs and their work. A scientist that would never accept a statement "this exists" from a colleague without evidence, quickly states God exists with nothing more than a nod and a wink (minus the wink).

I will accept any evidence - direct - that God exists. For creationists to suggest that the "evidence is all around us" is no more than paganism. It is the equivalent of a bunch of Neanderthals, hooting and shouting at the rising moon.

A Series - Comments

2005-05-17T14:47:00.000-07:00

My partner has given me a book, Science and Religion: Are They Compatible, edited by Paul Kurtz. We start off with Steven Weinberg in A Designer Universe? Two comments:

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion"

"I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment."

Having read other works by Mr. Weinberg, I find his position comfortable. However, not holding a religious view (even among the liberal left) is still considered a little too weird.

Tracy

Why believe?

2005-05-12T13:20:00.000-07:00

Is there any reason to believe anything a religion holds as Truth?

Without fear of retribution

2005-05-11T20:02:00.000-07:00

Does the idea that a lack of Divine Retribution makes it harder to have a civil society have merit?

Is it possible that as a lack of "religious faith" grows civil laws lose their ability to enforce behavior?

If you know that the odds of getting caught doing something wrong are pretty slim and if you 'know' there is no Divine accounting, are you more likely to act wrongly?

If you have no fear of God, no fear of the law....what is to stop you from doing whatever you damn well please?

Favorite movie about the afterlife

2005-05-04T16:38:00.000-07:00

Do you have a favorite movie of the afterlife? Assuming for a moment that you believe in an afterlife....

Mine is "What Dreams May Come" with Robin Williams. Comes closest to my own conception.

History

2005-05-03T09:48:00.000-07:00

For years I heard people arguing about the "Truth" of the Bible. It is true, it is partially true, it is a work of fiction...in the last year I started hearing something new...

"It is unimportant whether the Bible is true or not, I believe in Jesus".

Ok....fine...but if the Bible is NOT true, what exactly are you basing your belief in Jesus on?

In the last couple of months I have heard and read a lot about the historical (instead of the religious) basis for the Christian Church. Can anyone say "Mithran"?

Is there an afterlife?

2005-04-27T20:01:00.000-07:00

The question posed me: how can you believe there is an afterlife, and NOT believe in God?

I was unaware that one required the other...well, of course, belief in God requires a belief in an afterlife...but not the other way around.

Can there be a God?

2005-04-27T19:59:00.000-07:00

If you name that which created the universe God, then we can agree, God exists. However, any further discussion about the characteristics of God is your desire to support a system of faith or beliefs that I can not agree with.

Starting Point

2005-04-23T14:10:00.000-07:00

First, let me tell you where I am coming from.

If you counted all the grains of sand on all the beaches on the entire Earth, you will not have counted all the earth-type planets in our universe. Not counting the potential multi-dimensional universes that current theories anticipate, the probability that there is intelligent life besides our own approaches certainty. Given the vast numbers, it is probable that many life forms will be vastly different than our own.

Given this, is it rational to believe that a book of guidelines on how to live life, written by men, two-four thousand years ago could possibly be universal? I came to the conclusion that it is not. Is it possible that a universal creator in such a situation could focus on just one planet among all those countless possibilities? Is it possible that such a creator would be concerned with a single bird on just one planet? Arrogance, the ultimate egocentric, the result of childish beliefs and irrational fear.

This is where I am coming from. This is where I am, church, almost every Sunday. Why? I discount every belief taught and held by the members and clergy of all churches, yet I am here every Sunday (mostly!) Why?

Let me tell you what I believe about people of faith. There is a longing, a desire, a deep and important need many people feel that is ONLY satisfied by faith. Is it real? Is it rational? Yes, to both questions. BILLIONS of people say that it is real and rational and who am I to question it? I don't. On the contrary, I acknowledge that the vast majority of people feel the need for faith and I have a heart felt belief (!) that they should seek out that place, religion, belief or faith wherever it may be to fulfill themselves. Oh, do I think I am wrong given that BILLIONS believe I am? Nope. For me, I have fulfilled my faith need just fine thank you.

Back to why I am here every Sunday. You see, I have a partner. And we are raising a child. Both of them feel very strongly about faith and religion. Though our daughter is just 10, she loves church and talking about Jesus and God. I do much of the religious training in our house. I spent four years deeply involved in church including much teaching. I am familiar with the material! My daughter will tell you that she and her mama have God in their hearts, but not her Tracy. She knows that I am different about God, and although she doesn't understand, for now she is OK with it.

Before you think I attend Church for our daughter's sake, let me spell it out for you. I attend Church because my partner and our daughter think and believe that it is an important and fulfilling part of their lives. I too am an important and fulfilling part of their lives, as they are mine. Why would I not be part of all aspects of their lives.

If your spouse could have the desire, the devotion, the enjoyment participating in a sport or hobby that you LOVE wouldn't that be great! I don't have the same devotion to church my partner has, and as long as she acknowledges that, I am very happy to spend the two hours a week with both her and our daughter doing something that is very important to them.

If you don't attend church, regardless of the reason, are you honoring your spouse? If your spouse has a deep and abiding need for faith, belief and involvement in a church, can you not honor and respect that need? If you say yes, but that doesn't mean you have to attend church I will have to disagree with you. If you 'went out' every time your spouse invited a friend over, do you think both of them might feel offended? It is no different with religion. Honor your spouse. Do not grouch every week, do not whine, do not complain, just respect their need and desire and share with them that time they devote to fulfilling their need.

Last point. If you think you are going to get preached at every week, you will. If you think you are going to have faith thrown in your face every week, you will. If you think you are going to get caught up in something you don't want to, maybe you will. So what. I can watch a movie about anything, get really into it, and then walk out of the theater without it affecting my life. Can't you? Which is stronger, your belief, or their faith