Targeted

 Regarding a post on target pulling some LGBTQ merchandise due to death threats from neo Nazi groups I made the following post:

Me:  Target is trapped in the crossfire. If the stores support LGBTQ rights and sell merchandise indicating this, they are subjected to death threats from neo-Nazis. If they submit to the neo-Nazis and withdraw the materials or just plain don't support the movement, then they are sharply criticized by the tolerance crowd.

Not sure target has a way to win in this scenario.

L:  In trouble from all directions , so why not just sell shirts and whatever in basic form . Why do business have to make statements  everyone is a potential customer  , leave the printing to some after market shop . 

Me:  Targeting a particular group of customers to please them is a critical part of any business venture. What you're proposing is a business produce nothing but bland thoroughly generic merchandise. If they manage to get any funding to open such a store, it won't last a single quarter.

If you don't like what Target is doing, just don't shop there. Although I would certainly not support such a boycott. Nevertheless I would support your right to boycott them. But death threats? Surely you can cab condem that.

L:  Boycott never good idea , each person make own mind for what ever reason .

S:  Death threats to sales clerks? Seems to me that the nazi threat makers are the problem. Shouldn't be that hard to track them down and throw them in jail. For a long time. They are dangerous creatures.

S: I really meant it when I said that Trumps red hats are the programs of The Duce's black shirts or Hitler's brown shirts.

In fairness not all red hats are that extreme, but plenty of them are.

What Problem?

 Quite a telling discussion, giving insight into the unwillingness to face, much less deal with, the extremism our nation is suffering from today. I haven't bothered to post the link to the article because my post quotes enough of it to make the point clear.

Me:  I don't even remember where in the Bible it says blessed are the murderers or the lynch mobs, but I assure you this Pastor firmly believes that he is a Christian. 

I disagree.

> Hate pastor says trans-supportive parents should be "shot in back of the head"

"We can string them up above a bridge so that the public can see the consequences of that kind of wickedness."<

D:  These hate pastors are apparently all over the country, some working in mega-churches.  According to Wikipedia-

Capital punishment in the Bible refers to instances in the Bible where death is called for as a punishment and also instances where it is proscribed or prohibited. A case against capital punishment can be made from John 8, where Jesus speaks words that can be construed as condemning the practice.[1] There are however many more Bible verses that command and condone capital punishment, and examples of it being carried out. Sins that were punishable by death include homicide, striking one's parents, kidnapping, cursing one's parents, witchcraft and divination, bestiality, worshiping other gods, violating the Sabbath, child sacrifice, adultery, incest, and male homosexual intercourse (there is no biblical legal punishment for lesbians).

Me :   Way back, about 10 years ago or so, I was speaking with the philosophy club out at the VVC and pointed out to them that the Christian Dominionists (started by Rushdoony) were very quiet about it but were heavily influencing the evangelical movement in America. They want to bring back the death penalty including for children who are defiant or "curse" their parents. 

Once again the rise of this extremism parallels the abandonment of organized religion by younger Americans. I refer to them as the anti-evangelicals. Instead of spreading the good word they drive people away from it.

L: And you believe what’s said on media ? There are writers  just dreaming up stuff to stir people up . Remember their medicine show only makes $ when folks watch .

Me: L it's not just on the media. I watched the preacher preach this message. He recorded it at his own church. He's proud of it.

I have watched quite a number of other "Christian" preachers say very similar things. Not reports. Their own broadcasts of themselves. 

I know there's a lot in the world you don't like. I don't like a lot of it either. But at least I can  face it and acknowledge it's real.

MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN

 

An interesting discussion with my friend Bobby, which I am re-posting here because I think it’s interesting.

Hey Jim! How are you feeling after the booster of covid juice?

My friend, J, whose philosophies have driven him into a bout of nihilism, is struggling to find why anything matters. I briefly shared with him my personal 'aesthetic case' for meaning and significance in the world, basically that human being is an interesting phenomenon in the universe and could 'look' a lot of different ways - some 'better' than others and we influence that in some way.

It may be good fodder to chat about sometime -

He replied this morning clarifying his meaning of 'purpose' as meaning "to what end?" I replied:

-

I just saw your clarification, "to what end?" This is the right question to focus on precisely because I believe it's the wrong question we all hold.

"To what end?" showcases our expectation that the universe is teleological; it, and stuff among it, is designed according to purpose and if it doesn't, it is arbitrary. This, I believe, is a grave error we have all adopted since Aristotle asserted it as one of reality's four causes. It also allows the notion of an ultimate purpose, which drives smart men to nihilism, partly because answering with God doesn't solve the arbitrariness. Plato had Euthyphro underscore this. 

My view:

If the universe is computational in nature, then the question isn't "What is?" but "What's happening?" It views each moment of reality as a frontier of cycles of computation, processing forward. Reality describes a generative, self-evolving engine. A lot of stuff looks like it stays the same because some computation ensembles generate an equilibrium state, locations of homeostasis. Likewise, interacting frontiers can render new niches of reality for other computations to exploit, generating stuff that never was.

I think for us humans, our instincts to create and protect some stuff and stop others who'd impair that stuff betray our Aristotelian philosophies, and that's good. When we, say, want to stop the Woke or Puritanical Religiosos from infecting culture, for example, we see their potential impact on a destiny yet to be made. We see ourselves on the frontier of human being continually being written. I think this is right. 

I see you as a distinctive hypothesis of human being; your each enactment in the world entails your distinctive signature that just may become indelible upon the next cycles. 

And, those early humans who lacked these instincts never arrived. Nature selected them out. We are the inheritors of the instincts that change the future. We matter.

So, for me, when considering Purpose, instead of asking "to what end?," the question I prefer to ask is, "What's next?"

My reply:

Interesting problem and interesting timing. First, I have been a bit down from the second shot, though it didn’t hit me as hard as the first vaccination.

As for the problem of what’s the meaning of existence? Very interesting question. I’m going through a tough period right now for a wide variety of reasons. Much of which is that my life went so utterly differently than I planned and intended it to be.

I had a very difficult night last night struggling with those feelings. Most animals are well content with their existence is as long as they are comfortable and fed. That is enough. We humans seek a deeper meaning. You’re right that Aristotle made it a critical part of our general philosophy, but after all, he was just reflecting the reality of the human brain. We are so good at seeking patterns that we seek patterns and meaning in everything, including our own lives.

When we lived in Oklahoma, which means I was either five or six, I had a terrible meltdown and I remember standing in the doorway of the bedroom shouting at my mother, “I wish I’d never been born.”

The woman was shocked that a child so young saying that and told me, “But then you wouldn’t be here.  There wouldn’t be a you. And I said,”Yes that’s what I wish.”

I understood full well what I meant, but I didn’t know how to articulate it at that young age.

All my childhood I was torn by the fact that the world was such a vile horrible place and I didn’t want to live in such a vile horrible place. It was also during that period in Oklahoma that I first suddenly realized that I was going to die and it was evitable and it was no escaping it.  That despair was the most significant contributing factor.  This is the sort of thing that usually gets to a person in their 20s or 30s. But for me it when I was five or six.

Even I remember the moment it happened. I was dreaming one of those very vivid dreams I’ve had all my life which are so real that they are as real as any other memory.  Dreams I called dreamtime dreams in my own distorted version of the indigenous religion of Australia. In the dream there was a beautiful hill, which I was gazing down upon from above, as a group of mourners were going up carrying a casket. And I knew in the dream that I was dead. They were burying me. Two beautiful angels came down from heaven to carry my soul up to heaven because that’s what I’ve been taught happened, They reached down to hug the soul drifting up from the coffin. And nothing happened. They reached down to strain and struggle, but nothing happened. There was no soul. They turned to heaven and I woke up in terror.

Young as I was, I realized that if I had never been born I would never exist and then I would never have to go to the horror of getting old and dying. Of course, it was also clear to me that it was too late. I wasn’t suicidal. After all, I feared dying. However, if I had never been born, I wouldn’t be there to be afraid.

As a parent now after all these years I realize how hard this must have been my mother, especially since she had told us when we were older that she was never supposed to have another child. The doctors had told her not to. My brother’s birth had been difficult for her and she was told not to take the risk of getting pregnant again.

(Interesting side story there because I think this contributed to her poor relationships with both my brother and me when we became adults. I think she wanted to take the chance to have another child because she was rather desperate to have a girl. This would explain how she could turn away from her sons and toward their first wives, and at the same time reject their second wives. Her first daughters-in-law became the girls she always wanted.)

So with this despairing situation so critical a part of the human psychology, we all seek to have some meaning and purpose in this horrible existence. We feel lost and desperate. However, as you pointed out, if we could only be warriors for God fighting a mighty battle suddenly we are incredibly significant and powerful beings.  Joining a religion is like joining a militia. Suddenly you’re not a nobody or a loser, you are part of the glorious crusade to… fill in the blank.

The other side of it is that if you do accept the universe as a material reality in which the random fluctuations of probability and chance rule, then what’s the point of our existence? Even if you were William Shakespeare or Franklin Delano Roosevelt, what does it all matter a million years from now?  Or two million. Or one billion. Or many trillion after the heat death of the universe?

I’ve struggled with that issue and answered it in various ways at different times of my life. Ultimately what I’ve come to conclude is that you simply must create your own meaning. The happiness and joy you feel is real. It may be fleeting, but it is real. So are the pain and grief. The function, the purpose we have is to make the world as much a better place as much and as much more enjoyable a place as we can. Not just for ourselves and our own, but for everyone. All right, in a billion years who will remember? Nevertheless, we added to this cold and indifferent universe, even if for a brief time, real joy, real pleasure.

From many this will not be enough.  However, I think it must be enough.

Let me repeat once again that if we are highest perfection in this world that God could create then God is an incredibly bad creator and we are an incredibly hideous failure.

On the other hand, if we are apes who have risen up by pulling on our own evolutionary bootstraps, what we have accomplished is remarkable and we have reason to be proud of it.

Of course, I would rather be part of a great heroic crusade and lived my life as I intended it, but even if those options had been accomplished, would it really matter in the history of the universe? There really aren’t any good answers, except that everyone must make their own sense of purpose and reality. One of the reasons I am offended by what I refer to as the fundamentalist evangelical atheists is that they insist on taking away the comfort that some people have found. They want to strip them of their meaning of life because the crusading atheist extremist is seeking his own meaning by destroying the meaning of others.

I doubt this will be of any help to anyone. It’s just the story of how I worked things out.   However, I think you’ll find it interesting.

Let me end by noting that, for all the depression, trouble, and stress that I sometimes feel, when I’m with my family or friends and times are good, life is joyful and beautiful and very worth living.  At those times there is no question in my mind.  It is good to be alive. It is good to be here.

There’s a reason that I enjoy the philosophy of Epicurus and the book of Ecclesiastes.

Now to put it a bit more poetically,

The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on: nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.

-- Omar Khayyam

Of Angels And Apes

 Interesting excerpt you posted  although it was in such a pale print it was rather difficult to read.

My own feeling on this is that it’s not wise to rigidly structure anything which has to face the realities of dealing with human society. Any society is so complex, so fluid, one could say so protean, that any structure inevitably will not apply in at least a few situations. I should expect it would not apply in many situations.

For example freedom from and freedom to. Which is desirable? Which provides the essential basis? Which is most important?

It seems to me that this question is the same as someone having the inspired idea to save money for the mint. We can cut the cost of making coins in half. All we have to do is decide to make coins either heads only or tails only. Obverse or reverse. That way each coin is only half as hard to make and a half as costly to make as a coin with both.

Also will make them much lighter when you carry them in your pocket. Half as heavy, in fact!

Brilliant isn’t it?

Rather than make these efforts to create a skeletal structure upon which we can build all of our philosophical/political concepts, I think we need instead to allow for a greater level of freedom and autonomy by settling on what I refer to as elemental rights. It provides a good science-fiction concept as well as a thought for how to organize our current human world.

This is somewhat different from the bill of rights or the universal declaration of the rights of man, although it’s closer to the second in spirit. Elemental rights are the rights upon which all other rights must be built. Just like the periodic table of elements, all chemistry growing therefrom, so all rights must grow from elemental rights.

 The actual structure and nature of society becomes far more flexible and less rigid. As long as those rights are protected the details of societal structure become less important.

This is not to say that the structure of society does not matter to me. I deeply believe in democracy and I’m deeply committed to many liberal concepts. However, even liberal society sometimes denies what I regard as elemental rights. It’s not a question of either or, it’s a question of what is fundamental — or one might say, elemental.

If those rights are truly protected then I believe it would follow that most societies would turn into liberal, democratic structures due to the very nature of the people given the solidity, the security, in their persons and their lives. But it would not be necessary for this to occur. It is at least conceivable that a benevolent dictatorship could arise and still protect those rights.

Then of course comes the problem of getting people to agree on what those rights are. Obviously, religious fanatics would insist that everyone has a right to be forced to believe in the one true religion so as to save their souls from eternal damnation. They also insist that one must force people to accept salvation at any price necessary since whatever horrors might be inflicted in this life are temporal and thus must pass, whereas eternal damnation is eternal.

A few elemental rights which I would include would be the right to be safe and secure in your person and property (and then of course we begin to argue about how much property any individual should have and how much control they should have over it… one is compelled to think of the problem when American Indians allowed sharing of the land which ultimately belonged to God and thus could not be owned by an individual, followed by the settlers claiming that Indians had sold them the land forever).

Some rights which might seem obvious to you and me would not seem so to other cultures, especially those with extremist religious positions. For example, the right not to be raped seems pretty obvious unless of course you are a member of an extreme patriarchal society in which women are considered to be property more than they are considered to be human beings.

So the list of elemental rights would be rather difficult to create considering they are intended to be a universal set of rights which apply to all sapient and

sentient beings (scifi, again).  Naturally this means that animals also have rights. Equally naturally, animal rights would be limited when compared to human rights because while they may be as sentient as we are, they are certainly less sapient. (Sorry PETA… not really, because I don’t like you.)

So the right to vote I would not regard as an elemental right. However, it would be difficult to create a dictatorship if elemental rights were somehow enforced because you couldn’t throw people in prison for peacefully protesting or having the wrong political opinions or voting the wrong way. Hard for dictatorship to maintain itself without the element of terror. Robespierre had a point, he just took it to an extreme that is still staggering to believe.

I want to emphasize that the concept of basic liberties is not identical to my concept of elemental rights. Basic liberties are liberties when can be debated as to how they may or may not be inherent, whereas elemental rights are exactly that, unalienable.

I also want to add that freedom from and freedom to miss a critical element in their forced choice/false dichotomy. That is the element of responsibility. We can also frame that as being a member of a social species with social obligations to fellow members of said species.  In my mind, this extends to our fellow sentient and at least somewhat sapient cousins. We are all descended from one LUCA, one last universal common ancestor, so however distantly, we are all related.  Biblically we might have been created to dominate everything else without regard to their feelings and needs, but scientifically we are related and that does have some applications although one might disagree as to the exact nature thereof.

My position, then, is closer to the Oakshottean than any other since it does allow for a great deal of individual freedom within a framework which does not demand specific structures. Still, I don’t think that many liberals in general  would allow for the concept of a benevolent dictatorship to fit into their structure. It’s not that I like the idea of such a thing, but I recognize that it could exist and I could tolerate it as long as elemental rights were protected under it.  Naturally, one thinks of Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus. Here we certainly had elements of benevolent dictatorship turn into horrific brutality due to the death of a single man.

I can go on and on, but let me conclude by saying we humans are strange creatures. I was always upset by the way that Kurt Vonnegut turned (almost impossibly) more and more bitter as he aged. I told myself that I would not let that happen to me. And then Ronald Reagan laid the groundwork which led to Trump which led to today. This brings me up at a point where I can go on and on, but let me conclude by saying we humans are strange creatures. As I stated,  Vonnegut’s increasing despair snd biterness saddened me. I told myself that I would not let that happen to me. Now it seems Vonnegut may have had a point in his old age.

However, I comfort myself by thinking that, while in the classic tradition we are fallen angels, more or less at the very height of all earthly creation, as such we are a truly disgusting failure. While we have accomplished many beautiful and good things the horrors we regularly practice are simply unspeakable, except that we must speak of them since they happen to be real. On the other hand, if you regardless us as risen apes, things look different. For a troop of hairless chimpanzees, it’s surprising we do as well as we do.

Long post. I’ll have to put this on my blog. Unfortunately the print is so pale on what you sent I can’t include it. Oh well, it’s the best this hairless chimpanzee can do.

And I’ll have you know, for the record, that’s pan paniscus to you, not pan troglodytes!

Biblical Dissonance

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/hobby-lobby-keeps-disobeying-state-stay-at-home-orders-arts-and-crafts.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8176501/amp/Pennsylvania-evangelist-announces-hold-Woodstock-like-Easter-event.html

What is it about  fundamentalist extremist Christian sects that makes them so defiant of medical orders and common sense?

It isn’t biblical.  Although these groups invariably say the Bible is the word of God that must be obeyed somehow they never seem to actually do that.  Romans 13:1-2 says: "Obey the government, for God is the One who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power. So those who refuse to obey the law of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow."

Yet they always insist that they do these things for religious purposes based on the Bible, which they ignore.

I see why radical fundamentalist evangelical atheists think all religion must be bad when faced with these extremists, but then again that particular group should look in the mirror and realize that they are just as mindless.

Emotionalism, a dependence upon reactions based upon your feelings rather than facts and the application of the higher functions of your brain, has had a devastating negative impact on humanity for as long as there have been humans.

Which makes me feel very depressed, emotionally.

The Greatest Story Ever Screwed

I finally overcame my anticipatory revulsion and watched the new version of Disney's The Jungle Book. I have concluded that while the movie is not the hideous train wreck that the animated version was, it's still pretty bad. It is obvious that no one connected with either movie has ever actually read even a single one of the original Mowgli stories.They just gave the general concept the Disney treatment. If you are a work of literature and receive the Disney treatment, you can expect to follow a process similar to ancient Egyptian mummification. First they gut you. Then they scoop your brains out through your nose. Then they wrap you up in bandages and soak you in a bath of ooey gooey, sugar sweet clichés, throw in a few wild chase scenes, add a couple of adorable but mischievous animals, and you're done.

How bad do I find it? Well let's say Disney decided to do a New Testament spectacular. It would go something like this:

Walt Disney presents The Greatest Story Ever Told:

God the Father falls in love with that hot babe, the Holy Spirit. She's bad, but she has a heart of gold. She gives birth to a son, whom they call Jesus. Unfortunately, there's a war in Heaven at the moment and, what with heaven being bombed, all the children have to be evacuated to the countryside, that is, Earth.

Jesus gets sent to the Virgin Mary, wife of Joseph because he's too old to have kids and this lets them have a family.

But the great prophet, John the Baptist, is jealous. He fears this new Jesus will take over the number one spot. He can't let that happen. This is especially sad because John the Baptist is a follower of Moses. Moses set all the Jews in Egypt free and now wanders around the desert singing "The Bear Necessities" and teaching the people of Israel that they don't need to be slaves to material things, they can just be free and wander around eating bugs, honey, and manna. He especially likes locusts and wild honey. His greatest student, John the Baptist, still likes locusts and wild honey, but now he also craves power. (Moses, happily wandering the desert while eating bugs between two slices of mana coated with honey sandwiches, plays no further part in the movie.)

Hearing about Jesus, John decides to "baptize" the infant "accidentally" drowning him and making himself safe.

This is made easy for him because he is married to Salome, daughter of kindly King Herod. Evil John the Baptist convinces kindly king Herod that Jesus is trying to replace Herod, not John.

Hearing that Harod is out to get their child (they now regard Jesus as their own son) The Holy Family leaves his birthplace in a manger, taking along that adorable but mischievous little lamb and the dove up in the rafters, which is also very adorable.

They settle in Egypt for a while, which is ruled by the mighty pharaoh who uses his Royal cartouche to surf the waters of the Nile. He's a really laid-back dude and sounds like a Californian surfer.

I think you get the picture now. This is what Disney does to great literature. I know I'm very much in the minority, but most Disney movies really stink.

Sent from my iPhone

Pay For Pray

R posted a video declaring, Do agree you should be allowed to pray wherever you are? Never let anyone tell you not to pray… No matter where you are! Do you agree?

The video that showed various groups of people praying in public and making a very big show of it, in some cases being sure that there were television cameras recording their actions.

I responded: “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. Matthew 6:5-6

He replied: Guess this means we don't pray together Sunday's in church, hey Jim????

Me: I think Jesus meant to make an exception for praying in the synagogue. But you should ask him that question. I'm just quoting him.

That ended the exchange, but I have been thinking about it in the days that have passed. It's actually a very good question. I think it needs to be explored further; so I have done so and here is what I have concluded:

By combining Matthew 6:5-6, which refers to the public show of prayer, with other passages, the meaning becomes quite clear.

9And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified ratherthan the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Luke 18:9-14

This is clear enough. Ask yourself if you are praying to make sure that everyone, including God, knows what a great prayer and wonderful person you are or are you praying sincerely to God? It's a question of the target. Is your prayer a communion with God or bragging to your audience?

This is true whether you are praying in the privacy of your chamber or in the temple.

Or, to put it another way, don't let anyone tell you you can't pray anywhere you want anyway you want, not even Jesus!


Although the first portion of the Matthew verse I've already quoted does not directly refer to prayer, it does refer to doing things privately not publicly. I believe this is relevant.

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
“Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
Matthew 6:1-4

I believe that this indicates that it is not so much the privacy that is so important as is the sincerity. You should avoid public displays not because they are inherently offensive but because of very serious temptation to show off, to brag, to seek self justification, to seek worldly rewards rather than sincere communion with God.

I conclude that sharing prayer with your fellow believers during services may be good or bad, depending upon your intent. Sincere humility and love of God are pleasing to God. Shows and displays displease God. Even internal bragging and self justification displease God.

In short, motive is everything and God knows your motive.

This is why I try not to make a great show of public prayer. As I have noted in earlier posts, I require myself to pray whenever I hear a siren. I am often out in public when I hear one. Keeping in mind my feelings about the subject, I try not to pray too obviously. Not being a completely orthodox Catholic (American and European Catholics frequently aren't) doesn't preclude me from using the sign of the cross when I pray. In public I try to do it in a subtle manner with very small gestures which are unlikely to be noticed by those around me. If I feel I am too closely observed, I make the sign of the cross in my mind rather than as actual physical gestures, simply holding my hand up near my face as if being thoughtful. This permits me to meet this religious obligation without making a public show of it.

Contrast this with examples like those of Mr. Tebow, who makes a great show as he prays in front of millions, and I think it's easy to see why I am suspicious of his motivations. Then look at members of Congress who obviously exchange public prayer for votes...

'Nough said.

Revelation Revolution

Taken from an article which I have lost (sorry):

>...Thomas Jefferson that the final book of the New Testament is “merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation, than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.”<

This is an interesting point considering the attitude of some of the early Church Fathers who decided what books would be included and which excluded from the Bible. Eusebius, one of the chief supporters and apologists for Constantine (also the Bishop of Caesarea which we today call Israel), was quite clear in stating that there was no way in which the text could be accepted as an actual revelation and taken literally. It simply contradicted everything previously taught in the Gospels. He also was convinced that the John who wrote the book of revelations was the Apostle John .

He agonized over including the text in the Canon until finally he decided to include it in both lists, the accepted AND the rejected. It is hard to consider that to be a vote of confidence in the authenticity of the work.

Nevertheless, this highly questionable book, which some Fathers of the Church rejected outright, has not only become part of the Canon, it has become the single most important portion of the entire Bible for a significant number of American Christians.

As for me, long before I ever heard of the name Eusebius, I stated, to the intense distress of some family members, that I felt that Revelations was wrongly included and should never have been part of the Gospels, or any part of the Bible. It was more an emotional than a reasoned response, but I am pleased to say that as I have learned more about the history I find more and more reasons to believe that I was correct.

This is yet another reason I find myself so deeply opposed to the beliefs and actions of the Religious Right. They obsess about this one Book more than the rest of the Bible put together. When they do consider the other Books, it is often to interpret them in the light of Revelations; of Revelations taken literally.

No wonder their theology and mine are at such loggerheads.

I find myself much more in agreement with Mr. Jefferson. I have come to doubt all the miracle stories, although I do not necessarily reject them out of hand as he did. Miracles not withstanding, I can certainly agree that I am a Christian in the sense that our third president was a Christian. That is, I believe in the teachings and guidance of Jesus whatever his actual nature might be.

It is a painful irony to note that those of the Religious Right, who so often and so loudly proclaim their love and worship of Jesus, allow his teachings to be completely overshadowed and even poisoned by the bizarre imagery of the Book of Revelations, which, from the very beginning, has been regarded as suspect and even unacceptable.

The Inner-City Of God

From http://bizstandardnews.com/2015/08/20/jim-bakker-urging-followers-to-buy-real-estate-in-heaven

"I’m urging people to make these regular donations so we can offer up special prayers to guarantee their homes in heaven,” Bakker said. “People need to look at this like a down payment on their heavenly mortgage.”
Bakker and his ex wife Tammy Faye were among the most flamboyant televangelists of the 1980s, until they were brought down by financial and sex scandals. Bakker went to jail, but has resumed his ministry.
“Heaven has all kinds of property, ghettos, shacks, apartments, starter homes and mansions,” Bakker said. “Send in your love offering to ensure you have a palatial mansion in heaven. You want to make sure you are in a good heavenly neighborhood.”

There are bad heavenly neighborhoods? They must be in the ghetto. You know, the inner-city of God.

Well... In one of the lost Gospels, a wealthy man hires an apostle to build a mansion. When the wealthy man checks he finds that the apostle has been using the money building homes for the poor. Confronted, the apostle replies that by building these homes for the poor here in this world I have built you a mansion in heaven. Sorry, can't remember which lost Gospel it was.

Of course, the lesson of that parable would be the opposite of what the preacher man is saying. Building actual mansions for an actual rich man is not quite the point.

Ever wonder why people are so upset with self-proclaimed "Christians" these days? It's not persecution. It's disgust.

Good Christians Always Disobey Jesus

In response to a very popular Facebook post in which a young man at a graduation ceremony defied authority (immoral according to the Gospels) gave the Lord's prayer as part of his presentation. Responses from Christians were ecstatic. Unfortunately, it is clear that these Christians did not bother to read the words preceding the presentation of the Lord's prayer. I posted as follows:

Yes, well done!  Like all good Christians, you disobeyed the direct orders of Jesus.  Like all good Christians you acted like a deceitful hypocrite.  You offended the Father and the only reward you will get is the applause of your fellow hypocrites and their Facebook likes.

My fellow Christian friends don't know this? Read Matthew 6:5
“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Yes, nothing proves you are a good Christian like disobeying Jesus.

Lost Sheep and Cancer

My daughter's  post as her husband sufffers and dies of cancer and my reply:

Some times in the middle of the night are the hardest for me… After I do Ed's meds and get him taken care of my mind wanders…

Sometimes y'all say I'm strong and I feel very weak…

Sometimes I mourn Ed and my relationship and our love story…

Sometimes the tears run down my face and I don't think I can go on one more moment…

Sometimes I want to grab Ed up and run away (far away)

Even through all of these things I get up the next day and carry on…

I do it for Ed… I do it for our love…

It's just not easy and I am not strong I am just a woman who loves her husband and wants what's best for him…

A long response, but it comes from the depths of my soul and reflects a lifetime of struggle.

 

A person who does not suffer is not strong.  A person who does not feel is not strong.  It takes no strength to go on doing what you enjoy, or what is, at worst, boring.  

A strong person suffers and despairs, tries and fails, yet keeps on struggling.

Simon and Garfinkel's song declares:

In the clearing stands a boxer,

And a fighter by his trade

And he carries the reminders

Of ev'ry glove that laid him down

And cut him till he cried out

In his anger and his shame,

"I am leaving, I am leaving."

But the fighter still remains

He still remains, not because of his injuries or his failures.  He remains in spite of them, because he is strong. He could run and hide.  Instead he stays and fights the good fight.

Remember the post below from your philosophy class?  What it says about courage is true of strength.  There is no strength in doing things you enjoy and which are easy.  Strength is in struggle and in carrying on when you suffer.

http://el-naranjal-del-desierto.blogspot.com/2013/10/idle-thoughts-lost-sheep-in-heaven.html

Who is braver? The person who never fears anything or the person who overcomes his fear? Shakespeare said, "The coward dies a thousand deaths. The brave man dies but once." This is a very common attitude and it's very foolish. The idea that man who is brave is never afraid makes no sense at all. Bravery consists of going ahead when you are afraid. If a person ever existed who was never afraid of anything, he had no courage at all. He didn't need any. Also, he had some kind of severe brain damage.

Remember Aristotle's Golden Mean between cowardice and excessive courage. The person with no fear at all would be about as excessive as possible.

Imagine you go to a petting zoo and in one area there's a snake. Are you very brave if you walk up and pet it, when you have no fear of snakes and even enjoy their company? Of course not.

But an old friend of mine, Barbara Hamilton, was once teaching her class of special needs students. One of our bus drivers brought in his huge pet boa constrictor to show to the children. Barbara was absolutely terrified of snakes, but didn't say so because she didn't want to teach the children to share her fear. Since she looked so calm, the driver showed the children how nice snakes were by putting the snake on her lap and wrapping it up around her neck. She showed no sign of her fear.

The next day she couldn't come to work because she had broken out in hives as result of her absolute terror. She was brave. Although terrified, she would not show that fear because she didn't want to teach the children to be afraid.

The driver was not being brave, he was enjoying his pet.

The Gospels say:

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.  Luke 15:7 KJV

Is it not surely true that there is more joy and respect for those who suffer, yet carry on than there is for those who never suffered and which needed no strength?

We justly respect the man who serves by doing his job supporting the troops back home where there is no violence, but we only give medals to men who suffer and struggle and despair, but keep fighting on in combat.

It is better not to suffer, but if you do suffer, it takes courage to go on every day in the face of it.  It takes great courage.  It takes great strength.

You have both.

Why Not Just Walk Away?

This is my (now proofread) response to an article (which I can no longer locate) suggesting that all our efforts to make things better in the Middle East simply makes things worse. The author feels that we would actually be doing the people in the Middle East a favor by simply walking away, not to mention the benefits to ourselves. He makes a good case and it is an interesting contribution to the discussion:

Interesting idea, but American domestic politics make abandoning peace efforts in the Middle East impossible. Large segments of the American electorate are intellectually and religiously tied to Israel in a way that is not always understandable of those of us who do not share their obsession. If you do not accept the Bible as infallible, literal, and inerrant; then you can consider such a policy. But if you accept the Bible as those things, then it is clear that Israel is the center of the world. Even while proclaiming that we are a Christian nation and one nation under God and even a blessed nation superior to all others; these voters believe that, biblically, Israel is the only nation that really matters.

I also cannot help but be reminded of the situation in Northern Ireland. Any attempts anyone made to intervene made things  worse, for three centuries of occupation. In fact the US was often accused, with some real justification, of providing essential financial support to the terrorists. It was regarded as an impossible place, as unsolvable a problem as is the Middle East.

I don't think we can simply walk away. We have involved ourselves too deeply. To walk away now would say to the world that when the United States makes agreements we don't really mean them. It would prove that we will maintain our  commitments only so long is convenient for us to give a damn about you. This is a  message we cannot afford to send.  If we cease to be the leader of the world, Russia or China will be happy to take over.

Obviously, much of what we've done in the Middle East has made problems much worse. That's because we've done things which are self-destructive and even stupid. Rather than end all involvement in the Middle East, I suggest we take a more Northern Ireland approach. Peace did not come until both sides were told that they must both make sacrifices and new commitments. The worst thing about the Middle East now is that we always see only one side.  

Americans who support the Palestinians ignore the bitter, even genocidal, hatred of groups like Hamas. Americans who support the Israelis somehow cannot understand the horrors of so many dead Palestinians.  

A more just and fair positioning of American power, with attention paid to both sides as victims and victimizers could make a difference. In any event, it's too late to get out now.

Bible Facts vs Bible Forgeries

Susan and Joyce, interesting Bible issues, aren't they? 

In response to your questions: Ecclesiastes. Why would I like that book? There are a number of reasons. First, note the common thread in many of my favorite Bible quotes:  the endless efforts to be make perfectly fine distinctions between good and evil, right and wrong, lawful and not lawful, clean and unclean, etc. etc. etc. are all put down very hard.  Here is an Old Testament book which is as critical of the Pharisees and their endless arguments over minutia and their ignoring of the true heart and meaning of law as is Matthew.

Second, it's a very realistic view of life. It doesn't make promises that can't be kept.

Third, in the end it declares what we have is really enough if we relax and enjoy the life we have, it can be a good one to live.

So, if you read the entire thing you'll find out that, while it's reputation for being hopeless and dreary isn't entirely undeserved, the author does end up concluding that it is best to live your life to the fullest. It is good to have friends, it's good to have a good reputation, it is good to live with the one you love, enjoy life as best you can is the ultimate message, just keep God in mind while you do so.

It is a waste of time to seek great powerful meanings and to imagine yourself a critical player in a huge, vast battle. Better to live your life as best you can and to be fulfilled by that.  The entire theme of my story God's Wolf.

Why do I like King James?  The language is so out of date and it's difficult to comprehend, but the images are beautiful and it is truly the Bible as poetry, something not commonly found in other translations.

St. Paul on homosexuality and putting down women is really interesting!

First, the actual word used was arsenokoitai. The word at the time for homosexuality was paiderasste.  Why use a different word?  The word used is translated as "them that defile themselves with mankind".

Does that mean homosexuals? If it does, why not just say homosexuals? It seems much more likely that it means a particular sexual act rather than homosexuality in general. It was accepted as meaning masturbation throughout the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, an even well past the time of Martin Luther. It only changed into homosexuality after masturbation became accepted by society.

So what's the justification for changing the interpretation of this very ambiguous and unclear word? There really isn't any. At least, not from a scholarly viewpoint.

Even worse, those who look at the Bible in a scholarly way, whether they are believers and nonbelievers, regard this entire passage as part of a forgery added at least 100 years after the rest of Paul's works were written.

 In short, Paul didn't write it. 

The evidence is really very compelling that he didn't. Only those who refuse to let evidence influence their faith believe this passage belongs in the Bible.

Much the same thing to be said about the passages that are attacking women. Remember that Paul said. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."  Why should he say that and then later add on, ..."except of course, I was wrong; so ignore everything I already said..."? Why not just remove the offending passages?

 There's good reason for believing this also is pure forgery. A later addendum by someone who didn't like the morality laid down the Bible, so he decided to add on a few of his own prohibitions.

PS,

Anyway you look at it even if we accept the interpretation that Paul, if it was Paul, is condemning homosexuality; it is very clear that only male homosexuality is covered by the term. It is clearly not applicable to females or lesbianism. Shades of Queen Victoria!

PPS,

While the Victorians bitterly condemned homosexuality and threw homosexuals in prison (Oscar Wilde), lesbianism was not against the law. It is reported that this is because Queen Victoria would not permit it. Women would never think of such a dirty thing!   She thought it was insulting to have a law against something that wasn't possible.