BEYOND RELIGION

FOR FUN: The Skeptics Annotated Bible http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

SCIENCE IV

COSMOLOGY

“From whence, then, could arise the solitary and strange conceit that the Almighty, who had millions of worlds equally dependent on his protection, should quit the care of all the rest, and come to die in our world because, they say, one man and one woman ate an apple? And, on the other hand, are we to suppose that every world in the boundless creation had an Eve, and apple, a serpent, and a redeemer?”
- Thomas Paine

“Paine is saying that we have a theology that is Earth-centered and involves a tiny piece of space, and when we step back, when we attain a broader cosmic perspective, some of it seems very small in scale. And in fact a general problem with much of Western theology in my view is that the God portrayed is too small. It is a god of a tiny world and not a god of a galaxy, much less of a universe.”
- Carl Sagan

I would add to these comments that it isn’t even one world God is concerned with, but only one nomadic people in a very small country, to the point of favoring those from a particular family line, out of only 12 tribes. How small a god is that? That he can only “appear” in Israel and Egypt (and sometimes parts of Rome?), and even that for what turns out to be very few generations when weighed against the number of our generations. Your God is small, he only cares about one people, and only for a small blip of time. When he supposedly sends his son to die and thereby change his message to “us,” even that son is sent only for the Jews. It isn’t until the very last minute that God and/or Yeshua supposedly suddenly says, “And those other guys, too.” Yet those “other guys” have defined that religion for centuries, and even used it as justification for the mistreatment of Jews!

CONCLUSION

I urge that the same logic and method we use to test any fact be used to test religion. And if all the proof isn’t in yet, let’s admit that, without glorifying the lack of proof as something heroic. And if it’s something that needs to be interpreted, let’s require proof of correct interpretation, and a sensible explanation why this is the case.

As we’ve discussed, science relies as heavily on its priesthood and interpreters as religion does. And some of their hypotheses may remain forever impossible to prove. However, the things that have been proven we have cause to believe because there is at least some method to that proof. Thus we believe in things like gravity, even though we don’t know exactly how gravity works, because scientific method demonstrates that it exists. Religion has had no method in the last two thousand years other than truths revealed to one human at a time, with no method of interpretation other than “I saw,” or “I KNOW.”

A decade ago, when eminent scientists warned us about Global Warming, many of us didn’t believe them because they could not infallibly show it to the satisfaction of the man on the street. Now that the North Pole is all but subject to tides, there is proof. Why do some of us still fail to believe? Yet if a charming–enough stranger tells us they had a vision involving God, most of us believe him; he can make millions founding his own church and broadcasting on his own TV network while collecting Rolls Royces.

Most people don’t believe in psychic powers because they can’t be reliably replicated (a requirement of the scientific method), yet we believe in the power of prayer even though it can’t be reliably replicated, either. If we were as rigorous in our religious beliefs as we are in our scientific beliefs, the Earth would be a very different place.

Of course we can’t go back and change our history based on today’s wisdom, but we can go forward from today using reason and logic. The prejudicial belief in religion over science has been proven wrong at every turn, and as I hope our logical look at the Bible has shown, religion is NOT reliable, logical, nor replicable, is NOT based on reason, and is entirely UNPROVABLE. If God is so powerful and wants us to know he exists, let him show us in a way that can’t be denied. If he is either not so powerful, or doesn’t care what we believe, then he is irrelevant to our existence. I say he is irrelevant because faith in this unproven being does not lessen the possibility of: Divorce, Addiction, Adultery, Infection, Crime (smaller percentage of atheists in prison than Christians), Homosexuality, Cancer, Autism, Mental Illness, Birth Defects, Abandonment, Poverty, War, Starvation or Death.

The religious pay tithes to their churches even when it’s clear that the money is going to the church and not to the poor. They continue to pray for peace even though that prayer has never yet been answered; would it not be wiser to DO something about it? Or are we still not that wise? Let us think, for once, what it would be wise to do. We are no longer adolescents on this planet; it's time to grow up.

STATISTICS OF FAITH AND OTHER FUN

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html/

MOVIE RECOMMENDATION (The God Who Wasn't There)To purchase the movie: www.thegodmovie.com

Listen to "Hereby Chants" for something different at: www.herebychants.com

And to wrap up with fun: www.400monkeys.com/God//
And Movie: Religulous (a Bill Maher comedy about religion in America)

SCIENCE III

SUMERIA AND OTHER ANCIENT CULTURES

Previously: “Studying the ancient stories of Sumer, some history buffs believe some Nephilim (also called the Annunaki) came cruising by from the planet Nibiru and created humans as slaves.”

Apparently the idea of a paradise, a heaven and hell, of a god and angels, a tree of immortality and even a great flood came originally from Sumeria. In fact some call the Sumerians the first human civilization, and already it was filled with these fantastic stories. They show the first evidence of a system of writing (or we wouldn’t know so much about them), had the first standing army in history, and had cities with walls around them. it appears as though they just burst full-blown onto the scene. But of course we must always keep in mind that Archaeology is barely getting started, and we’ve only dug up about 5% of the earth’s land surface – there could be father-civilizations out there still.

I once assisted with the making of a short film set in medieval times. It started out with a nursemaid telling a story to children in a castle. We decided that the children should be of every race we could get hold of. Only later did it occur to me that we were actually altering history. Children of every race did not live in European castles in the Middle Ages. It felt so right to do it that way, but it wasn’t the truth. Given the choice, I wouldn’t do it that way again, but it goes to show, I think, how astonishingly easy it is to make the story just a little more fair or pleasant or clear or just. Not only were there children of all races, they were all dressed as only princes and princesses would have been dressed at the time. I call this the 25% embellishment allowance. If you seriously consider this story-telling flaw, then extrapolate over a few centuries - think how many generations came and went before our ancient stories were written down, it’s frightening. What have we been believing? This is why so many seekers are searching for the most ancient of religions – we want to know what mankind thought before the deterioration of centuries. Sumer gives us that.

But it would be too bad if someone mistook “2001: A Space Odyssey” as a true history or as a religious teaching of our century. How can we tell Sumerian’s entertainment literature from actual beliefs? We can’t.

The fact that Sumerians “invented” writing is also to their blame – for what is oral changes with the times, but what is written can last for centuries without change. I guess that’s both a good thing AND a bad thing.

When archaeologists uncovered evidence of a kind of combination soccer/basketball court in South America, what made them decide it was a religious pastime? We’re never told. The ball going through the hoop describes the same arc as the sun in the sky? Oh, please! Can’t they have enjoyed sports? Sure, there are some murals that depict one team killing the other, but don’t we basically say the same? We’re going to murder the other team? And the Aztec bent for executions (sometimes several thousand in a single DAY) is believed to be a way of sending prayers to the gods. I haven’t seen the evidence of that (and I don’t believe we’ve deciphered their writing as yet). Is it just an archaeologists’ imagining? Of all the sciences out there, archaeological anthropology is probably the one we’d be most likely to understand, but we’re not shown the evidence, just fed the party line.

In the study of history, listen! The most difficult lesson to learn is that people of the past were NOT stupid! They were just like us. I’ve heard people laughing about some of Walt Disney’s creations, saying if a future archaeologist found them, they might think we worshipped mice. What part of that is funny? It’s probably what we’re doing now!

SCIENCE II

EVOLUTION VS DESIGN

The reason this subject is even open for discussion is not only because we can’t understand a thing a physicist or professor of math says, but also because humans our very selves are so unlikely. The evolutionists would have it that we, well, EVOLVED here. But if that were the case, wouldn’t we be some of the baddest mothers on the planet? Instead of being so frail we must cover our skin in sunlight, our feet most anywhere, have no natural weapons AT ALL – even our fingernails are worthless as weapons – they break off before they can hurt anyone but ourselves. Our teeth aren’t good weapons, we have no ability to camouflage ourselves, we can’t even outrun a deer, we’re not strong for our size (we should be at least as strong as a chimp, wouldn’t you think? But we’re not…). We can’t be left out in the rain, out in the sun, or out in the cold. If we’re from here, how is it we need vitamin and mineral supplements to survive? A creature living on the savannah, for example, won’t get much vitamin C. Yet doctors and nutritionists insist we must get more than an orange’s worth per day. What?

We are the only primate whose males haven’t a penile bone. Even though primates are shaped a lot like us, they do not have sex face-to-face as we do – nor do most other earth creatures. Earlobes are another mystery – only humans have them. No genetic advantage, they just hang there. They don’t even improve our hearing. One of the serious questions evolutionists have to face are skulls through the ages. The problem is, when you get to homo sapiens sapiens (us), the skulls (which have gradually been getting larger through the millennia) are suddenly smaller, thinner, more frail, and =thwup= have suddenly invented foreheads.

We can’t see in the dark, in the infrared, can’t hear or smell as well as a dog or hear as well as a cat. We’re puny little helpless things for several years after birth – a fact that didn’t improve our chances of survival in caveman days, unlike a cow or a camel, ready to run alongside its mother within an hour. In fact, it’s hard to think of any human survival advantage. You may name speech, and say we can therefore hand down knowledge and work together in teams – but what about before language developed among us? The ability to speak doesn’t impress a lion in the least (or any cat, for that matter).

We have no defensive weapons – nor do we have any defensive tricks. We can’t spray ink, stink or quills. It’s so easy to knock us down that we don’t even need second-party intervention; we trip over our own feet. And why don’t our females have a breeding “season?” Other animals do, because any young born in winter have a lesser chance of survival – and that was true of early humans, too. It’s not as if this has been going on only since fur coats and central heating.

Only our pluck and our willingness to work together does anything for our survival whatever. I’ve seen a cat chase away a dog ten times it’s weight and twice as vicious; that’s pluck. So it’s a Star Trek world, after all. And what’s this thing we have with art and music? How is that a survival trait? Did it get the chicks? Because if so, both Beethoven and Hendrix missed that boat. Along with Van Goh, Janis Joplin, Leonardo da Vinci, Antonio Vivaldi; it doesn’t seem that being in the entertainment industry makes one prone to more reproductive success. Nor, it seems, does science. Yet we simply burst with artists and scientists of every kind, and always have since the caves. And here’s another point – every other animal on the planet is born capable of making whatever shelter it needs, but mankind took quite a while to figure it out. How can we have evolved in a place where we’re the least likely to survive?

A very long time ago some wise men decided we must have been designed to live in a garden. Studying the ancient stories of Sumer, some history buffs believe some Nephilim (also called the Annunaki) came cruising by from the planet Nibiru and created humans as slaves. I don’t want to even discuss Scientology and its alien forebears. But if I were creating/designing a slave, I’d make him very strong – stronger than local primates, certainly, not to mention local predators! Of these two choices, the garden seems just a bit more likely. There is some evidence (albeit slight) that aliens have been (and/or are now) here. But whether we were created by a god or aliens, it would be unconscionably cruel to create a being for gardens and then toss it out into jungles, savannahs and ice floes, where Neanderthals had already claimed the territory (and yes, they were stronger than we were, and every bit as smart, plus anthropologists now believe they also had the gift of speech). The only reason I can think of which isn’t cruel is that these garden-dwellers got lost or escaped by themselves (and found they had to wear clothing in this new, crueler environment). That might just pass as an original “sin” from which all suffering flows.

I don’t believe there is an omni-present God, nor do I believe in alien intervention (though it’s an interesting possibility), nor do I quite buy evolution. I believe it’s a very difficult subject that has yet to be proven to a satisfactory degree. There have to be more than those three alternatives, don’t there?

SCIENCE

I know I spend a lot more time on religion than I do on science – that’s because I’d need a few decades-worth of college just to understand the questions in science! Whereas religion, alas, gives one all the ammo one could wish. I do believe in the scientific method, and I applaud the brave souls not only trying to figure out what’s what, but staking their reputations and livelihoods all too often on the answers.

Just, lest we rely on scientific reasoning too much, let’s remember that all the laws of physics, biology, all the ologies, really, life, the universe and everything, all apply to only 4% of the universe. Either that, or we have no idea what gravity is (with apologies to Sir Isaac Newton). And the really sad thing is, it’s true – we really know not much more about gravity than Einstein dared imagine. Even though I’m not a bizzillionaire, I’d like to lobby for getting this issue looked into! Let’s also keep in mind that science doesn’t have answers to such questions as “What is reality?” and whether everything we know of is made of vibrating strings, branes, or bits of pure information, or even, as the New-Agers would have it, of thought itself.

And pseudo-science is NOT the answer. Just because real scientists dumb down the message almost enough for people like me to nearly understand it, that doesn’t mean that’s all there is to it. The idea that our “intentions” affect reality is based on some creative thinking. Are you familiar with the question of whether light is a wave or a particle? (Yes, we don’t know what light is, either...) In that experiment, whether or not the experiment was being observed seemed to affect the outcome. Now, if the light doesn’t know whether you’ll be watching or not, it couldn’t do that, and the way I understand it, our INTENTION to observe must therefore be affecting the outcome, because it works even if we tape it and observe it LATER. If that’s not correct, I beg you, explain it to me! But this is very different than saying that anything you can conceive of can be yours (for a progressively larger fee, naturally).

That brings up science’s biggest problem today; how can scientists, who concentrate for an entire career on particles too small for us to see even with the greatest super-microscope, explain to ordinary people what they’re doing and why it matters? If they end with the sentiment that a new technology has been borne out of these experiments, that we get. We LOVE our cell-phones, our tweets and twits and magic boxes of music. Anything that makes more gadgets, we like. But how will we ever know anything if we can’t even figure out gravity? It’s not like it’s a new thing. Or light? Wasn’t that one of the first things ever to exist, in EVERYONE’S creed?

The real question is, if it weren’t for the possibility it could supply us with ever brighter toys, would sciences like quantum physics even be called science? Because science, as I understand it, is supposed to EXPLAIN things, not make them more mysterious. According to Dictionary.com, science is: “Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” The operative word being KNOWLEDGE, not imagination or mathematical proof.

Of course we need specialists, and I can certainly see supporting agricultural and pharmaceutical or medical sciences, whether we can understand them or not. But the truth is, in spite of our great technological strides, we don’t know what the basic components of our world are, and some of us care.

JEWS IN CAPTIVITY

It’s simply incomprehensible to me that people still believe tens of thousands of Jews were slaves in Egypt, even though Egyptian’s (who were masters of record-keeping) kind of forgot to mention that. They also forgot to mention the ten plagues, the escape of the Jews, and the death of the pharaoh’s entire charioteer corps. Archaeologists have been combing the desert for generations and have yet to come across the slightest evidence that a large group camped there for forty years.

Science has tried to provide an explanation; that there was a massive volcanic eruption which would account for all ten of the plagues AND the pillar of smoke by day and fire by night. There would also have been white flakes falling from the sky, but I hope the fleeing Jews didn’t actually eat the volcanic ash and call it mana (perhaps that would fall under the 25% embellishment rate). Science even accounts for the death of the first-born, as the eldest son was usually given night duty over the livestock, who were ill and dying. This doesn’t quite explain the death of pharaoh’s son, as I believe he had people to do that.

But another bizarrely missing piece of the puzzle in the Bible is the name of this pharaoh. Certainly they all knew his name, especially Moses who was supposedly brought up in his household. Yet it’s never once mentioned. It’s a small detail, but telling. Other things that seem strange; that God sends Moses to demand the release of the Jews, but God hardens pharaoh’s heart against Moses. Why would he do that? Another small but extremely annoying detail.

As for the parting of the Red Sea (or the Reed Sea, or the swamp), again Science offers the possibility of a tidal wave, where the water first withdraws (seemingly completely) then rushes back with incredible force. However, there’s never been a tidal wave which would allow forty thousand people and a corps of charioteers to cross the seabed (or swamp) before rushing back and drowning them. Even four hundred people is extremely unlikely. Four people might make it.

Of all of these events, we can say, “Ah, it was miraculous; God at his showiest,” or we can accept the simplest explanation; that the whole episode was caused by nature. Add to that the fact that there weren’t enough Jews in Egypt to even warrant a mention, and apparently the ten plagues weren’t worth mentioning, either, and Pharaoh didn’t have a name, no one camped in that desert, and for all it’s great holiness apparently even the Jews can’t remember which mountain Sinai is, and I think logic must guide us to dismiss this entire story.

For these reasons, I believe in the Holocaust, but I don’t believe in the Exodus. I’m interested in hearing your opinion!

DOES GOD KNOW THE FUTURE?

In the book of Job, God makes a bet with Satan that Job will remain faithful to God, even if all the good things in his life are taken away. Now, if God knows the future, wasn’t he cheating? Or did he not know the outcome for certain?

If God knows the future, why didn’t he build a fence around the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why didn’t he warn Abel? He warned Noah of the flood and Abraham of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Jews in slavery how to escape the Angel of Death, but these disasters God would have known about in advance because he was the one who supposedly caused them.

But note: “If a thing he said does not come to pass, he is a false prophet.” (Deut 18:22). God said David’s kingdom would last forever, and it didn’t. Jesus said the second coming would happen before his generation passed away, and as far as we know it didn’t. So aren’t both false prophets?

Unlike Abraham, Jephathat did have to sacrifice his child because of a promise he made to God. No angel stopped him, no ram appeared in the brush. And if God knew the outcome, why didn’t he warn Jephathat that he would have to sacrifice his daughter? And why wasn’t Lot told that he could rescue his daughters but would lose his wife? And why would he free his people from slavery only to have them wander, homeless, for forty years?

Presbyterians believe that Man has free will and choice, but that it’s all planned out, even which choice you will make. That’s always confused me, frankly. And it gives God a power of knowing the future that I don’t think stands up to the church’s own logic.

If God knows the future, isn’t the whole exercise of our existence futile? I propose that God does not seem to dwell outside of time, therefore being able to see past and future equally. His behavior seems as utterly linear as our own. And if that’s the case, then the Apocalypse won’t be the result of Satan trying to take over the world, but rather, God knows in advance only because he is the one who will cause it.

Whether or not God knows the future is important, because if he exists as linearly as we, then all these supposed “prophecies” (though they’re not made by actual prophets) and visions of an impending apocalypse are false. It’s also important because our prayers for our future have unforeseeable outcomes – unforeseeable even by God. Show me in the Bible where it says, “God, knowing the future, left the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil unguarded, even though it would cause guilt and suffering of a million generations of man.” If God knows the future, he’s a mean (and cheating) old man.

And lastly, but not leastly, if God knew the future back when there were real prophets, why no warning to rotate crops, maintain wild areas, stay away from fossil fuels, and otherwise protect the environment, when lack of that information in advance has caused many civilizations to fall, and may ultimately result in the failure of the entire human race? Strange thing not to mention, isn’t it?

THE CASE FOR SATAN

That which is worshipped in churches:
- Loves your money (greed)
- Encourages outdressing and outshining each other (pride)
- Forbids anyone to speak against or question anything (slavery)
- Commits genocide and encourages others to do so (murder)
- Encourages bigotry and arrogance (more pride)
- Requires parents to both brainwash and sacrifice their children (see Jephathat)
- Punishes innocent children for their parent’s sins – for FOUR generations! (crazy-talk)

How does this differ from Satan’s supposed agenda? And if God is omnipotent and omnipresent, apparently so is Satan – or how did he know how to tempt Eve (humans being an entirely new phenomenon), know when Yeshua had gone alone into the wilderness, how did he know Job? Besides omnipresent means present in everything – even the Prince of Darkness. One theory is that nothing exists outside of God, and everything is made of God. Hence he is also Satan.

If God is omnipotent and omnipresent (and Satan is, too), and God is Satan (a name that means, simply, “adversary”), God struggles with himself (Hos 11:8-9) and even regrets that he created man (Gen 6:6). In fact, this means God is responsible for both good AND evil. And if we’re created in his image, doesn’t that explain a lot?

Perhaps it’s not that God is evil, but more that he is schizophrenic, sometimes blessing us and making lovely promises, sometimes taking sick delight in our suffering and destruction. The Adversary takes on a whole different meaning when we consider that it is God struggling with himself; it explains why God has regrets and indecision. Why Abraham has to remind him to be just, for instance. But if God is schizophrenic, then he isn’t perfect, is he? But there is a kind of beauty in this paradox; what if God created man to have someone to share the struggle, or even as an experiment to see whether one side or the other would ever win? But the Bible never mentions this easily-explained description.

Don't get me wrong; I don’t mean to say that I support Satanism, only that the god of Satanists seems the same as the Christians’. I believe they even use the same Bible, only upside-down. If God is divided against himself, and we’re created in his image, well, there you go! No wonder believers preach humility out of one side of their mouth and arrogance out of the other.

Once again, the Church is hoist by its own system of belief. It does that rather often, doesn't it? Perhaps the Bible was written by schizophrenics?

WELCOME

Thank you for joining this discussion! This conversation is about discrediting the Christian Church and the Christian God by using their own holy book to disprove their claims. It’s about refusing to believe in a thing that won’t hang together logically or admit of reason, and can’t bear up under questioning (in fact, won’t allow it). This church is still gleefully burning books (?) encouraging bigotry (such as that against abortion doctors), still adamantly against science (while broadcasting to millions using every high-tech gadget they can possibly use). Fundamentalists believe Barak O’Bama is the anti-Christ (for the apparently sever crime of being charming) and that his health care reform is but the first step in establishing a New World Order; so add conspiracy theory enthusiasts to the list of their strange beliefs.

Naturally they believe (as some in every generation do) that these are the very end times (really this time), in which case they see no advantage in things like the environment or world peace – in fact they often pray for Armageddon – the war to end all wars – to arrive soon.

When egomaniacal gurus from foreign countries are exposed as frauds, there’s a general attitude that anyone who believed their weird credo deserves to have been taken advantage of. But when it’s an egomaniacal Christian, no one seems very concerned, and they go right on believing the weird credo, despite the number of frauds exposed. It’s exactly like psychic phenomenon versus prayer effects and miracles; why does one require extraordinary proof while the other requires none at all?

It’s time to tear away the mystical "handkerchief of invisibility" from the Christian religion and judge it on its actual merits. Doing so can have only one outcome, since their beliefs don’t even agree with themselves.

Please feel free to leave your comments supporting either side of the discussion, and I hope you’ll return soon!

BAPTISTS GLEEFULLY BURNING BOOKS!? WHA?

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/civil-religion/general/2009/10/halloween-book-burning-at-baptist-church-to-include-copies-of-the-bible/

LABELS

Perhaps I’ve been mistaken in calling myself a Rationalist…it’s not so much that I believe we have the ability to figure it all out (I suspect we don’t), but I believe we do have the ability to reject things that don’t make sense. I fully grant you there may be a being or beings which we cannot apprehend, much less comprehend. But since that’s unknowable, what is there to discuss?

Maybe I should call myself a REALIST? The reality is, though some people are miraculously healed at Lourdes, pious millions who visit there are not. Therefore, I have a better chance of winning the lottery than obtaining a cure there. That’s just being Realistic, isn’t it?

I don’t want to be counted as a screaming atheist along with worshippers of the Nephilim of Ur or the inhabitants of Mu, or those who pray to UFOs. As far as I can tell, these are just more myths, no thank you.

“Agnostic” seems to imply I can’t make up my mind, which isn’t true. I believe that if there is a supreme being, I cannot (or at least, in spite of trying, have not) see anything to prove his or her existence. And I cannot see anything showing he or she wants us to know of his or her existence. The god I see others trying to believe in is immoral and amoral, not even meeting the standards I hold out for my own self, surely a sociopath of sophistication, a sadist, and less good than man.

If God is unknowable, as it seems clear He is, then what’s the purpose of worship? If there is a Supreme Being, why does It need my worship? Why does it need us to wipe out whole peoples who are no different than we? If God is good, how could SACRIFICE of innocent creatures PLEASE Him? Or the smell of burning offal? (“I created you all, now I want to see you DIE!”?) Or war? How can it need my money, of which I have little enough? And lastly, what does God need with a starship? Your God sounds like Satan to me.

So as a Realist, if you believe evolution, then you must realize there is only one hand at the wheel – yours. Now you could spend a hundred hours praying, but if you’re a realist, you should spend a hundred hours DOING. And of the two, which do you think will get what they wanted?

I don’t feel that everything needs to be explained. Why have we evolved to love? What does it matter? The fact is, we love. That we can know. So when making plans, we should take that into account. We know a certain proportion of the population at any time is homosexual, so let’s take that into account as well. Let’s stop ignoring what we know to be true, eh?

Or maybe I’m a Humanist – I do believe in human rights and human responsibilities. I’m not a pagan, I’m clear on that much. But all these labels are creaking old, having been around so long they have their own set of matched luggage and an infinity of frequent-flyer miles. Perhaps that’s why the Brights made up a whole new name for it. Henceforth, I shall know myself to be a “Bright.” Maybe it’s just another label, but I’m willing to try it on to see if it fits. You can join, too at: http://the-brights.net/

BY THEIR TEACHINGS KNOW THEM

We’ve shared many quotes by wise men and great leaders, but perhaps it’s time to hear what the other side (Unwise Teachers?) has to say:

It's good to trust others but, not to do so is much better. We become strong, I feel, when we have no friends upon whom to lean, or to look to for moral guidance.
- Benito Mussolini, born 1883 CE, Roman Catholic

Gratitude is a sickness suffered by dogs. I trust no one, not even myself.
- Joseph Stalin, born 1878 CE, Atheist

They are in a dilemma, they are in trouble now. Hate them and strike them.
The west need someone to tell the man who walks around with the biggest stick in the world, that that stick can`t bring down God`s house.
- Saddam Hussein, born 1937 CE, Sunni Muslim

How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.
Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice.
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.
It is not truth that matters, but victory.
- Adolf Hitler, born 1889 CE, Catholic

We say the name of God, but that is only habit.
The more bombers, the less room for doves of peace.
- Nikita Khrushchev, born 1894 CE, Atheist

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.
One man with a gun can control 100 without one.
- Vladamir Ilyich Lenin, born 1870 CE, no religion of record

Where the sayings of Wise Teachers are about our connectedness to all things, these men speak only of dis-connectedness. If all of us follow the admonishments of Mussolini and Stalin, no one would trust anyone. Imagine what a world that would be! Truth would be valueless, love would be impossible. History frowns on these, but at the time they were followed by millions. Don’t allow yourself to be led blindly. Be led wisely. You can know the wise by their teachings. But go carefully; you should follow the wise one’s teachings, but not the rituals, wars, or religions which grow up after him.

MORE WISE TEACHINGS

“Blessed is the servant who loves his brother as much when he is sick and useless as when he is well and can be of service to him. And blessed is he who loves his brother as well when he is afar off as when he is by his side, and who would say nothing behind his back he might not, in love, say before his face.”
- Francis of Assisi, born 1181 CE, Catholic, Founder of The Franciscan Order

If the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowlege: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
- Charles Darwin, born 1809 CE, Agnostic

This above all, to thine own self be true, and then it shall follow as night the day, thou cannot be false to any man.
- William Shakespeare, born 1564 CE, Baptised in Christian Church

The teachings of all wise men – great men – are the same; be kind, be active for charity and for peace. These teachings don’t come from churches. Listen; most of them rebelled against churches, yet churches are sometimes made after them but never BY them. Just think about that. Churches are built on the teachings of those who defied the church. Mohammed never entered an Islamic temple, Jesus never entered a Christian church.

King Solomon (believed by some to be the wisest man who ever lived) was not so wise as not to sin – but (supposedly for the late King David’s sake) is spared punishment. This is odd, because no punishment was spared David himself. It’s almost as if God had regrets.

The ‘narrow way,’ the correct path, and true wisdom all lie outside the church. This gentle way is the opposite of “I have to think of myself first.” More important that you should think FOR yourself.

“There is nothing in the holy fountains but water; I know, for I’ve been swimming in them. There is nothing in the holy books but works, I know for I have been looking through them.”
- Kabir

It is true that “Man cannot live by bread alone,” (Matt 4:4) but he also needs more than sacred water and sacred books. He needs the ineffable, subtle, and gentle service to his fellow creatures; listen! This is the path, the way, the truth, the life. Follow the words of the wise, not the words of their worshippers, preachers, interpreters and other obfuscationists!

MORE WISE TEACHINGS WITHOUT RELIGION

We know that the white man does not understand our ways. One portion of the land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother, but his enemy - and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He leaves his fathers' graves, and his children’s birthright is forgotten.

The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind darting over the face of the pond, the smell of the wind itself cleansed by a midday rain, or scented with pinon pine. The air is precious to the red man, for all things are the same breath - the animals, the trees, the man.

The whites, too, shall pass - perhaps sooner than other tribes. Continue to contaminate your own bed, and you might suffocate in your own waste.

Today is fair. Tomorrow may be overcast with clouds. My words are like the stars that never change.

We are part of the earth and the earth is part of us. The earth does not belong to us. We belong to the earth.

What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected.
- Chief Seattle (Sealth), statesman, philosopher, born 1786 CE

I do not recognize castes and races. I behold only one humanity. I am working for mankind.Keep undiminished kindness toward all beings and also the spirit of self-sacrifice. Kindle the light in yourself, then kindle it in others. Like spreading light by lightning one candle from another all around a room, so we should spread love from heart to heart.
- Haidakhan Babaji, yogi, born twentieth century CE(or immortal) (Hindu)

Therefore, perform righteous actions, for action is better than inaction; being idle, one cannot support even one’s own body.
- Krishna, prince, born 3228 BCE (founder of Hinduism)

O servant, where dost thou seek Me? Lo! I am beside thee. I am neither in temple nor in mosque: I am neither in Kaaba nor in Kailash: Neither am I in rites and ceremonies, nor in Yoga and renunciation. If thou art a true seeker, thou shalt at once see Me: thou shalt meet Me in a moment of time. Kabîr says, "O Sadhu! God is the breath of all breath.
(From “Songs of Kabir,” translated by Rbindranath Tagore)
- Kabir (Kabīra) weaver, reformer, born 1398 CE (Hindu, Muslim, Bhakti)

I am neither Christian nor Jew, neither Zoroastrian nor Muslim, I am not from east or west, not from land or sea, not from the shafts of nature nor from the spheres of the firmament, not of the earth, not of water, not of air, not of fire. I am not from the highest heaven, not from this world, not from existence, not from being. I am not from India, not from China, not from Bulgar, not from Saqsin, not from the realm of the two Iraqs, not from the land of Khurasan I am not from the world, not from beyond, not from heaven and not from hell. I am not from Adam, not from Eve, not from paradise and not from Ridwan.

I searched for God among the Christians and on the Cross and therein I found Him not.
I went into the ancient temples of idolatry; no trace of Him was there. I entered the mountain cave of Hira and then went as far as Qandhar but God I found not. With set purpose I fared to the summit of Mount Caucasus and found there only 'anqa's habitation. Then I directed my search to the Kaaba, the resort of old and young; God was not there even. Turning to philosophy I inquired about him from ibn Sina but found Him not within his range. I fared then to the scene of the Prophet's experience of a great divine manifestation only a "two bow-lengths' distance from him" but God was not there even in that exalted court. Finally, I looked into my own heart and there I saw Him; He was nowhere else.
- Rumi (Mawlānā Jalāl ad-Dīn Muḥammad Balkhī aka Jalāl ad-Dīn Muḥammad Rūmī), poet, mystic, born 1207 CE (Sunni Muslim)

Yes I am [a Hindu]. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew.
- Ghandi (Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi) lawyer, reformer, born 1869 CE (Hindu)

Shall I not inform you of a better act than fasting, alms, and prayers? Making peace between one another: enmity and malice tear up heavenly rewards by the roots.
- Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh, shepherd, reformer, born 570 CE (founder of Islam)

Kindness in words creates confidence. Kindness in thinking creates profoundness. Kindness in giving creates love. If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.
- LAO TSE (Laozi), Keeper of Archives, hermit, born 570 BCE (founder of Taoism)

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear. In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
- Martin Luther King, Jr., minister and reformer, born 1929 CE (Baptist)


Immortality can be reached only by continuous acts of kindness; Perfection is accomplished by compassion and charity. That which is most needed is a loving heart!
- Buddha (Siddhārtha Gautama), prince, reformer, born 420-563 BC (founder of Buddhism)

As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.
What is serving God? Tis doing Good to Man.
- Benjamin Franklin, statesman, inventor, born 1704 CE (no professed religion)

CALLING BULLSHIT II

COMMERCIAL BULLSHIT

Whatever you do, don’t fall for these “No Risk” trials. You’ll find there IS a risk – let’s say you love the product. It takes you about 20 days to use up the 15-day trial’s worth of sample. Should you go to order yourself some more, you’ll find you’ve already been billed for 30 days’ more worth, which is in the mail. Now if you have plenty of money to throw around, that’s fine. If you don’t, it could be a disaster. And until you cancel your “automatic subscription” (which was part of the fine print on the “risk-free” trial), you’ll keep getting charged, whether you’re out of product at the time or not, whether you want it or not, whether you can afford it or not.

Let’s say you DON’T love the product. It takes you about 5 minutes to realize you in fact HATE it. Now you must act quickly, as though you had no other obligations, because you must return the product within the 15 days so as not to be billed for the next installment. You’ll probably get return instructions from the company, telling you in very exacting terms when and where and how you will mail this return. From the package you can clearly see that shipping the package to you only cost $.99, but you find that cleaving to their returns policy, it’ll cost you $6.99 or more to return this 3-ounce container. If you’re trying to return a home gym – I can’t even imagine what the charge might be. Now, don’t miss the deadline, because if you do, you’ll find you’ve been charged for a one-month (not a 15-day) supply, and also for the next month’s order.

So “No Risk” is quite a relative term, and good luck trying to get some customer service from people who keep useless business hours and put you on a telephone carousel semi-permanently (it may be permanent, I’ve never waited it out). I’d say there’s a risk.

Also, listen (or read) carefully. This new miracle diet drug might have fine print that says “with proper diet and exercise,” and unless you’re able to provide them with a log of your food intake and calorie outgo, they may not be obligated to live up to their claims. It’s not false advertising, so long as they’re slipped in the “diet and exercise” clause. And the truth is, if you use proper diet and exercise, you don’t need their product.

As for anti-aging claims, (watch for that “proper diet and exercise” clause) please – those before and after photos – I mean, watch the final scene of Jurassic Park – special effects experts can make Queen Elizabeth look like a velociraptor for heaven’s sake. Of course the earnest user (who is a well-paid actor) will look better – they could make him or her look like anything. A teapot. No matter how much their story sounds like your own, remember; they’re trying to sell you something.

You may think you’re protected by laws that forbid false advertising, but are you prepared to sue? Because it takes a court case to enforce your rights. Can you afford a lawyer, and even if you can, do you WANT to hire one? Advertisers COUNT on your reluctance or inability to sue. Why buy a thing on television anyway, when you know they’ve made it look much nicer than it is and gurgled on about the quality (as they are well-paid to do)? If you must buy a diamond ring, try a jeweler; they’ll treat you like royalty, and you'll be able to see and touch what you're getting BEFORE you buy it.

NOTE: Thanks today to Morgan for the great link: http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/09/30/first.blasphemy.day/

CALLING BULLSHIT

There are people alive today who believe they are the Messiah (and they have their own churches, as well!). There are people alive today who believe God has given them a mission to destroy certain "kinds" of people. There are people alive today who believe the planet will be ‘saved’ by Divine or alien intervention. There are people alive today who believe Queen Elizabeth is an alien. There are people alive today who believe that women are of inferior intelligence and self-control, and must therefore be obedient to men. There are people alive today that believe that if your skin is a different color, you are not quite human. These people do not live far away from you; they are your next-door neighbors. This is not happening in another country or another time. It is happening in your country, on your street, right now.

If someone walks up to me and tells me he is an alien, I would ask him, “How can I know what you say is true?” And it’d better be a darn good proof. Special effects showing that Queen Elizabeth is actually a reptile are not going to do the job. That's what I call "Calling Bullshit."

If someone walks up to me and tells me he is the Son of God, I might be tempted to ask the same thing, except my background would probably show through; “How can you allow such injustice?” And it’d better be a darn good proof. Talk is not going to do the job, nor sleight-of-hand, nor unempirical miracles.

And if someone walks up to me and tells me he’s found all the secrets of the universe, he’d better have more than obscure/inexplicable mathematics as proof.

Every generation since the idea of an apocalypse was first thought of has sincerely believed itself to be the “last generation.” History is replete with examples of people who’ve predicted the end of the world or the arrival of aliens, and these all have one thing in common; uh…nothing happened. Anyone who asks me to sell everything and meet them on any kind of “landing field” is going to face some pretty serious questions from me.

MY PERSONAL *RELIGIOUS* BULLSHITOMETER:

1. Do I have to take someone else’s word (or interpretation) for it, or is there physical evidence anyone can see?** Corollary: If I have to take someone else’s word for it, how do I know they can be trusted?
2. Will it work even if I am a skeptic, putting out negative vibrations?
3. Is it cohesive? That is, does it contradict itself, or is it consistent?
4. Does someone profit (in dollars or fame) from my belief? (We’re all trying to make a living…)
5. Is it open to question, revision, change, accountability?
6. Is it sane? That is, does it match with reality?
7. Is it noble and good, or does it hurt people (or their rights)?
8. Can it be repeated?
9. Does it change anything (to know about this)?

Regarding Resurrection: There’s as much evidence for The Resurrection as there is that Elvis is still alive. If you believe in one, why not both? I call bullshit on that.

Miracles: In many cases the miracles performed by Yeshua are copied almost word for word from the miracles of other (Old Testament) figures. Even bringing the dead back to life was a re-run.

Given their track record, I might also add “Does it have anything to do with crop circles, Easter Island, the Nazca lines, Nephilim, or the magic properties of crystalline rocks?” Because I’m getting quite weary of those. Also, beware: the fact that there is internet footage available of the “latest discovery,” does not make it true. Look to reliable sources (such as http://www.newscientist.com or http://www.archaeology.org) before you believe it.

THE POWER OF PRAYER

PRAYER HAS NO PROVABLE EFFECT ON THE RECEIVER, ONLY ON THE PRAY-ER

Why is it that people won’t believe in psychic powers because they’re unable to be reliably duplicated, when the effects of prayer can’t be reliably repeated, either, but are beyond question or doubt REAL? In a double-blind study, those who were prayed for didn’t recover from surgery any faster, nor were their surgeries any more successful than those who were not prayed for.
And let’s remember, for every ‘miracle of healing’ performed at a sacred site, there are thousands, tens of thousands, in some cases millions of penitent visitors who are NOT cured.

Every priest, minister, rabbi, and imam worthy of his or her vocation (including the Pope) has prayed for peace. FOR CENTURIES. But the world has never been at peace. We can pray now for God to save our ecology, but as the prayer for peace mentioned above illustrates, it’s probably not going to happen. Pray for our planet if you wish, but then get up, go out, and make it happen! Just as you should do for peace.

RATIONALISTS SPEAK

According to Bill Maher, 20% of adults now say they are Rationaists. He didn’t offer the name or date (or anything useful) about the poll or survey he was citing. But there’s no doubt that the Rationalist ranks are growing.


No rights implied.

“There are other similar ‘savior figures’ in the same neighborhood at the same time in history: Mithras, Attis, Adonis, Osiris, Tammuz, and so forth and nobody thinks that these characters are anything but mythical and their stories are so similar (to Jesus’ story)… that it just seems like special pleading to say, ‘Oh, in this one case it really happened.’” -Robert Price, Historian

“Why should we consider the stories of Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, Mithras, and other Pagan Mystery saviors as fables, yet come across essentially the same story told in a Jewish context and believe it to be the biography of a carpenter from Bethlehem?”
- Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy,“The Jesus Mysteries”

“Many currents fed the Jesus myth, like streams and tributaries joining to form a major river.”
-Kenneth Humphries, “Jesus Never Existed”

“…‘Defenders of the (Christian) faith’ were compelled under incessant charges of fraud to admit that Christianity was a rehash of older religions. …In fact, in their fabulous exploits and wondrous powers many of these (Pagan) gods and goddesses are virtually the same as the Christ character, as attested to by the Christian apologists themselves. In further inspecting this issue we discover that ‘Jesus Christ’ is in fact a compilation of these various gods, who were worshipped and who’s dramas were regularly played out by ancient peoples long before the Christian era.”
-Acharya S, “The Christ Conspiracy”


No rights implied.

When “the penny dropped” for me, was when I realized that Yeshua was a man. You might think this was when I stopped revering him, but that’s not the case. I was, in fact, much more in awe of the man than I had ever been of the god. Imagine a poor man (cut away all those “miracles”) who is so wise and so brave as to stand up against everything he’s been taught, against the established church, against following his people’s laws as a way to heaven. A very interesting man, indeed. I believe he was a pauper (he was a carpenter’s son, but there’s no mention of him being a carpenter himself) with a transcendent vision of peace and the brotherhood of all men. You see, the miracles, the rituals, the mythos mean nothing at all to me. But I can respect a man who says the church is not the way. Cutting out the whole mythos, one thing remains; someone caused an enormous break from Jewish tradition around 30 CE. So there you have it; I don’t claim Jesus Christ as my personal savior, but I do claim an enormous respect for a poor man called Yeshua for living by what he believed. For me, it doesn't hurt Yeshua's case at all (though "his" church will disagree) that he had a bit of a temper on him. Christians should not be put off by that fact (such as when he cursed whole cities – in which I feel certain there was at least one good man – or when he cursed an innocent fig tree for having the effrontery not to bear fruit out of season because he was hungry - I've done the same). He even cursed his own disciples pretty regularly. Christians don’t usually dwell on this side of his personality. I have the same respect for Akhenaton, who had a transcendent vision of one god being for everyone, Martin Luther for having a transcendent vision of the Word of God being for everyone, and the Buddha for having a transcendent vision of right living, right thought, right action. Wise teachers all, and all horrifyingly misunderstood at one time or another, if not altogether.

BIBLE NON-SENSE

THE BIBLE WAS NOT ALWAYS AS IT IS NOW, SO WHICH VERSION IS THE PERFECT WORD OF GOD? AND IF THE BIBLE WAS PERFECT, WHY DID IT NEED A ‘NEW TESTAMENT/NEW VERSION?’

The Old Testament is a book based on a body of oral and written traditions from many Israelite tribes, collected together about 300 yrs after Yeshua, and even then it didn’t contain the same scriptures it does now. There are over 100 ‘books’ which were used by the early church/synagogue which are not available in the present Holy Bible. The Bible has been re-translated and re-edited by the church several times, and they ‘corrected’ many jots and tittles in it (for instance, removing the name of God). It is worth noting that the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Muslims, Jews and protestant churches are all using different versions of the Bible, and each group believes theirs is the true Word Of God.

THE DIVINITY OF YESHUA

Originally, Yeshua wasn’t considered Divine, even by the Catholic church. In fact, the church had to argue about it for quite a while before they decided on his status, and a full consensus was never reached. Those who called for Divinity won, so we never hear about the others.


MAN WAS GIVEN THE TASK OF NAMING THE ANIMALS AND CARING FOR THE GARDEN, AND GIVEN DOMINION OVER THE EARTH

Which of us can say we’ve been a good servant in caring for this garden? Why isn’t the church MASSIVELY concerned about this? I've never even heard a sermon on the subject.

THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL

“And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” (Joshua 10:13) When people didn’t know any better, this passage was merely miraculous. Now it seems merely ridiculous. Did the earth stop turning to provide this ‘extra’ day? If so, everything would have flown off into space, wouldn’t it? Or I guess the sun could have considerably have altered its orbit, probably destroying Mercury and Venus in the process, certainly leaving a trail of destruction...

THE TEN PLAGUES (Ex 5-11)

Archaeologists have been searching the Sinai dessert for centuries and have yet to find any evidence that a rather large group spent 40 years camping there. But I understand the religious want that to be covered under “mysteries.” Yet even evoking ‘mystery,’ the story itself doesn’t hold together anyway…

So God has decided that the Jews should be released from their Egyptian slavers. He picks Moses to carry this message to the pharaoh, and gives him a few magic tricks to back up the request. However, at this point, God decides to “harden Pharaoh’s heart,” so that he will refuse to release the Jews. How about the idea of softening his heart and forgetting about the magic tricks? But no, the story goes on to tell us there are plagues sent to change his mind (still never resorting to unhardening his heart). Among the plagues is the fifth plague, an epidemic among the Egyptian livestock (horses, camels, sheep, etc.). This epidemic doesn’t bother the Israelites’ CATTLE (they were very rich slaves, apparently). And yet after the last plague, as Moses leads his people out of Egypt, Pharaoh pursues him with thousands of chariots. Apparently pulled entirely by dead horses. And when engulfed in the Red Sea, the dead horses apparently die again. I’m not making this stuff up. Read it in Exodus for yourself.

Elijah, who is “righteous,” condemns 42 children to grisly death for making fun of his baldness. Sounds like a right cranky old bastard to me. And in denial, besides.

END TIMES

Every generation since the idea of an apocalypse was first thought of has sincerely believed itself to be the “last generation.” History is replete with examples of people who’ve predicted the end of the world or the arrival of aliens, and these all have one thing in common; uh…nothing happened. Anyone who asks me to sell everything and meet them on any kind of “landing field” is going to face some pretty serious questions. World is ending! Oops, still here. What’s to discuss?

ANGELS

I seem to have gotten a little off-point with these last few posts, so to return to the main subject....

The Seattle Times, June 2008, mentions the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Survey, which states: 68% (7 out of 10) of Americans believe that Angels are active in the world. So what exactly ARE angels?

ANGELS WERE COMMANDED TO BOW BEFORE MAN

According to folk wisdom and apocrapha, there were two falls from Grace; one due entirely to the fact that some of the angels would not bow to man as they were commanded to do. Bowing offers the neck; in ancient times, this was a symbol of complete power of the bowee over the bower. Even though some of the angels rebelled against this, some didn’t. They should be ours to command. Yet they won’t return my calls.

-When the angels were “cast down from the heavens,” was that “cast down to Earth?” Because they’re often said to “Descend from the Heavens…” Are they still here now? They’re immortal, right?

ANGELS ARE NOT BEINGS OF ‘SPIRIT’

The Mormons view angels as the messengers of God. They believe that angels are former human beings or the spirits of human beings yet to be born. Islam also believes they are messengers of God. They have no free will, and can only do that which God orders them to do. Angels can take on different forms. Prophet Muhammad, the last Prophet of Islam, speaking of the magnitude of Angel Gabriel has said that his wings spanned from the Eastern to the Western horizon. At the same time, it is well known in Islamic tradition that angels used to take on human form.

In Zoroastrianism there are different angel-like figures. For example, each person has a guardian angel. They patronize human beings and other creatures, and also manifest God’s energy. The Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, although they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda (God).

Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahá'í Faith, referred to angels as people who through the love of God have consumed all human limitations and have been endowed with spiritual attributes.

`Abdu'l-Bahá defined angels as "those holy souls who have severed attachment to the earthly world, who are free from the fetters of self and passion and who have attached their hearts to the divine realm and the merciful kingdom."

It is asserted by Theosophists that all of the above mentioned beings possess etheric bodies that are composed of etheric matter, a type of matter finer and more pure that is composed of smaller particles than ordinary physical plane matter.

Early Christians took over Jewish ideas of angels, shifting between the angel as a messenger of God and a manifestation of God himself. Later came identification of individual angelic messengers. Then, in the space of little more than two centuries (from the third to the fifth) the image of angels took on definite characteristics both in theology and in art In traditional Christianity angels are regarded as asexual and not belonging to either gender.

The earliest known representation of angels with wings is on what is called the Prince's Sarcophagus, discovered at Sarigüzel, near Istanbul, in the 1930s, and attributed to the time of Theodosius I (379-395 CE). Four- and six-winged angels, often with only their face and wings showing, drawn from the higher grades of angels, especially cherubim and seraphim, are derived from Persian art, not from the Bible.

Angels were able to have sex with mortal women, so they’re not androgynous. They fell in love with the ‘daughters of Man,’ married them, and shared ‘secrets’ with them (makeup and jewelry, healing and metallurgy). This doesn’t indicate that they are non-physical! When invited to eat and drink, they do so. When threatened by a mob, they have no magical means of escape. When appearing to mortals, they usually just walk up like anyone else. When their business is concluded, they walk away; they don’t disappear into a mist or anything. There is no mention of wings, haloes, beautiful music, beautiful smells, or unnatural light in association with angels.

While traveling through the desert, Jacob wrestles an angel all night, apparently thinking he is wrestling a man. That’s a pretty intimate form of contact; had there been anything insubstantial about this angel, surely Jacob would have noticed it.

The Pew Poll didn't specify which kind of angels people believe in, but I have a feeling it's not the physical kind.

AMERICAN DREAMS II

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Before I present statistics and survey results, I want to pause to point out that all polls and surveys are not alike. They’re not taken at the same time, they don’t all ask the same kinds of questions, and they don’t all report their findings in the same format. Still, I think these results bear looking at in light of President O’Bama’s succinct summary of Health Care Reform as “we will help people pay for their insurance.” Unless his help is a 100% subsidy, here are some of those whom it will NOT help:

(There are between 46 million and 86 million uninsured in America, depending on whom you ask.)

The numbers below, my friend, are in MILLIONS
(37,000,000 Live below the poverty line)
12,000,000 Illegal immigrants (or 20,000,000 according to other poles)
7,000,000 Work for minimum wage
15,000,000 Unemployed
9,000,000 In long-term care
31,000,000 Are single parents
34,000,000 Are homeless
----------------
108,000,000 for whom “help” will not be enough

Even if we remove 25% from this (my standard incompetency rate), it leaves almost ONE THIRD of the population who will still be without health care other than emergency services (assuming that those continue). All happening in your town. Work out a way to provide health care to these, or face them across the cantaloupe. Ironically, these are the Americans least likely to vote, revolt, or be published.

But before you say to yourself, “Let them die, then,” remember that the only way polio, smallpox, cholera, and tuberculosis were wiped out in the U.S. was by vaccinating EVERYONE. When vaccines stop, it’s likely these will return with vigor.

Between the 51,000,000 on Medicare or State or Federal Disability and the 2,000,000 in prison, 53,000,000 are already 99% subsidized by the government.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

Before I leave this subject, a note to immigrant-hopefuls; The American Dream is not as easy to get as to just work very hard. Yes, there is plenty of food here, but it is, in most cases, not free. That whole one man/one vote myth has been busted. We don’t have enough jobs for our own selves, and there are beautiful homes here, but almost half of Americans can’t afford a nice home. To get citizenship isn’t easy, especially if you can’t read, speak and write English. You may be resented for your heritage/religion/color/values and ability (or inability) to drive. And once you are here, your family becomes just as vulnerable to our crime, divorce rate, and incidence of run-aways as ours are. The pioneer days are gone; your children will want iPods. And if someone offers you a ‘credit’ deal, where you get something now and pay for it later, you might as well know the deck is stacked such that you can never pay it all back. It IS still possible to start poor and get somewhere, but remember that 5% of the people control 95% of the wealth. The other 95% of us are fighting, killing, dying to get that last 5%. And we’re not as lazy or as stupid as you may have heard. You will have to fight hard to make it here, and at the cost of your cultural heritage. Wouldn’t it be easier to improve things where you already are?

I’d like to be clear that I have nothing against immigrants, and in fact respect all races and cultures. And if you get here, we will try to help you. Help just may not be as satisfying as the comfort of your own friends, family, community, culture, language, and home lands.

AMERICAN DREAMS

THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION

Being an American, I was brought up to think of the United States as a “Christian” nation. But the country was founded, in fact, by a mixture of people from many countries, some Christian, some agnostic, some atheists, many with very different views and interpretations of the Word Of God (if any). They gathered here, and agreed specifically on one thing only: that the government should emphatically NOT have any say in religious matters, nor should religion have any say in government matters. Yes, an atheist has the right to run for office. And no, one has never needed to be a Christian to be a citizen, or even to be president. Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of its Founding Fathers, said in 1810:

“... [A] short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandising their oppressors in Church and State; that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ.”

Thomas Paine, another of the Founding Fathers, said, in “The Age of Reason”:

“Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient Mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.

“Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

“No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

“It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.”

George Washington, first U.S. President, said:

“The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances, be made subservient to the vilest of purposes.”

And for Benjamin Franklin fans:

“Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

“As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity…”

AMERICANS TODAY (Population 305 Million) According to Pew Poll :

76% CHRISTIAN
Evalngelical Protestant 26.3%
Mormon 1.7%
Orthodox .6%
Protestant 18.1%
Catholic 23.9%
Jehovah’s Witness .7%
Other .3%
4% NON-CHRISTIAN
Jewish 1.7%
Muslim .6%
Buddhist .7%
Hindu .4%
Other 1.5%
(According to “Covenant of the Goddess,” 1 million Americans are pagan .3%)
15% NO BELIEF

Christians might want to look a little more closely, as not all Christians are alike. Evangelicals top out the scale at only 26.3%.

So I hope that’s cleared it up, then.

THE ETHICS OF OUR TIME VIII

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Right at this moment, there are efforts under way to create computers with Artificial Intelligence; face-recognition, voice-recognition, expressive interfaces. The thing that’s a bit disturbing about this is that we don’t even know what “mind” is, and we’re trying to re-create it. Doesn’t that seem just the tiniest bit unwise? I hear computers learn better when they get some rest every day. Am I the only one who finds that a little scary?

I don’t know much about how computers work, but I do have a good idea how we do. Humans have a strong tendency to anthropomorphize already. Our computers become our treasured friends or malevolent enemies dependent on how well they work (which is usually the operator’s fault anyway). Now what happens if our computers become capable of returning our affections and frustrations? Will they kill themselves if you can’t work them? I mean, I assume they have access to their own hard drives…or whatever drives are in use at the time. Will it, like Data, feel bad if it can’t get “the joke?” Will it be okay to leave them alone for a few days while we go to the beach? How will we feel when we need an upgrade? Like we’re loosing a pet? Shouldn’t we be thinking about what we’re creating?

Our record, even in highly-intelligent humans, isn’t that good; they’re sometimes defective in unforeseeable ways. The genius composer can be a social idiot. Not to mention physicists (just kidding, they generally don’t compose).

Programming will become as complex as DNA. We’ll probably need a whole diagnostic lab just to check code. At what point will it make sense to have computers take over making computers, and how will they evolve after that? Thank goodness for Asimov’s three laws – what were they, again? Interesting times.

But the biggest question is, does experiencing emotions equal life? If something is afraid to die, is it murder to kill it? Vegetarians of conscience, I ask you especially, when will a machine become considered alive?

Most horrifying of all is that “tipping point” often portrayed in science fiction, where people begin to elect to have themselves replaced with electronic simulations, whether physical or virtual. I really hope that’s one we don’t have to worry about for now, but who knows? Again, we need to think about where we’re headed.

THE ETHICS OF OUR TIME VII

STATISTICS, COINCIDENCE, PREDICTIVE MODELLING

Statistics may seem straightforward. It’s just math, right? Well, yes, but…

For example, the number of births today is a statistic. Using this number, planners can take appropriate action in regard to future schooling resources. But statistics can also be deceptive; to say a certain number of people believe in UFOs may be very misleading. First of all, what, exactly, was the question these people answered? “Do you believe there is such a thing as an Unidentified Flying Object?” is quite different from “Do you believe alien spaceships are visiting Earth?” Depending on exactly how the question was phrased, this statistic could lead one to believe that a lot more people believe in aliens visiting our planet than actually do so. When you hear that a certain number of people do something or believe something (a much different case than just counting births), you should lend it no credence until you get to see the survey questions and responses for yourself.

On the other hand, statistics can clarify just how “magical” a coincidence is or is not. The Birthday Paradox (a mathematically-proven principle) states that in any random gathering of just 23 people, there is a fifty-fifty chance that at least two people have the same birthday. So if you’re sitting next to someone and find out you share a birthday, this is not a “magical” coincidence. It’s just an example of probabilities. When you speak to someone at an airport, and it turns out you have an acquaintance in common, this is not as unexpected as one might think. You both live or know people in both the city you’re in and the city where you’re headed. You are of a close enough social match to be speaking to each other. How many acquaintances do you have? How many do they have? It’s not as outlandish as it might first appear that you should have an acquaintance in common. When something seems like an amazing coincidence, it’s usually not as amazing as it might seem.

CONSPIRACY THEORIES

First, please accept the my proposition that all work is only 75% successful. That is, that there’s a 25% incompetence rate. It’s only a theory, and you can modify it upwards or downwards if you wish, but the fact is that incompetency and indifference exist, in every undertaking.

The idea that there is a network of superspies, supercomputers and superhuman agencies directing things is, to say the least, a little paranoid. The Occam’s Razor principle is a good one for this issue: “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.” In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the most likely. How likely is it, for example, that a hobo in a tinfoil hat is being tracked and even having his thoughts influenced by the CIA? Just keeping track of him would require:

To cover 21, 8-hour shifts (in one week) would require at least four full-time people (since each will only work 5 shifts per week), plus another person to cover sick-days, personal-leave, and vacation time. If each is paid $35,000 a year, the budget thus far is $175,000 per year. Now add in the cost of health insurance, office space, communications equipment, computers and office machines, and supplies like paperclips and toilet paper, and vans full of spy equipment. Add a manager to be in charge of the people and an administrative assistant to be in charge of everything else. Let’s say the admin person is only paid $30,000, but the manager makes $50,000. In wages alone we’ve already exceeded a quarter of a million dollars per year. Depending on the location of the office and the level of technology involved, the cost to track one hobo would be at least half a million dollars per year, and could be as much as 10 million. What does this hobo know that could possibly be worth this expense? And if you factor in the idea that not everyone does their job well at all times, how much of the time would they really be paying attention, anyway?

I tend to discount conspiracy theories simply because it seems so unlikely that very rich and powerful men are secretly working in concert, never betraying one another, never revealing their secrets to anyone, ever, without any disagreement, toward some vague goal of making themselves even richer and more powerful. Given the general disagreeableness and incompetence of people in general and rich, powerful people in particular, it just seems unlikely. I think it’s more likely your check got lost in the mail than that someone stole it, yet left all your other mail untouched (as though they had x-ray vision). And (with apologies to all hobos everywhere) I don't think the hobo knows anything the rest of us want to know badly enough to spend a dollar on it.

THE ETHICS OF OUR TIME VI

GENETICALLY-MODIFIED CROPS (YOU’RE SOAKING IN THEM NOW)

Man has been successfully breeding crops since before the Middle Ages. Lately we’ve been able to modify them more aggressively, by using a virus to carry altered genetic instructions directly into a plant’s genome. When successful, these new traits breed true, and if they’re particularly successful they may replace naturally-evolved crops. This has been going on since 1980, and GM foods have been in the markets since 1990. In the produce section of the store, fruits and vegetables grown through GM techniques are labeled with a sticker containing a five-digit number beginning with ‘8’. However, no such labeling is required on foods which have GM products included in them. For example, if a package of corn chips have used GM corn, no disclosure is required.

There is a difference between GM crops and Irradiated (or Radiated) foods. Irradiated foods have simply been passed near a source of radiation in order to kill the bacteria which causes it to spoil. No radiation remains in the food. If it did, that would be contamination. Contaminated foods are not knowingly sold.

It would appear that American consumers have been unknowingly eating GM products for the last two decades. The alarming thing about it is that very few studies have been done to determine what effects eating GM foods might have on humans. There is some evidence that the altered genes can make changes in our bodies (picture those genetic modifications continuing after their source is eaten). There’s also been very little investigation into how breeding (for instance,) bug-resistant crops might affect the ecology. Doesn’t it seem like this is something the FDA might have looked into before these foods were placed on our shelves?

It could be that GM crops come with their own failsafe. We don’t want insects in our food, and we don’t want them eating food we could be eating instead. But if we make crops that resist them so well that the insects starve to death (or are killed by eating them), the ecosystem may break down to the point where the crops themselves fail.


GLOBAL WARMING

Are we all finally in agreement that the earth is getting warmer? Now that Santa’s North Pole home is experiencing tides and an infestation of underwater life? The Earth herself is a system that is so complex and co-dependent that no one can make accurate predictions at this time. Still, it’s looking like way past time we deal with this cooperatively. That means Green technologies NOW. It means action from EVERYONE, immediately.

THE ETHICS OF OUR TIME V

GENETICS
CHANGING THE HUMAN GENOME

Is it good or right to tweak the genomes of living things? Actually we’ve been tweaking the genome since the first man chose the prettiest girl with whom to mate. One of the reasons humans have come to dominate the bio-system is because we figured out how to ‘breed’ plants and animals to be more like we want them to be. If it isn’t wrong to put males and females (who may not be interested in each other in that way) together in order to gain descendents that have more meat, are more docile, are more trainable, are better-looking (to us), why is it wrong to do it not in the barnyard but in the lab? And don’t kid yourselves, humans have been bred exactly the same way. By un-natural selection.

Actually, the idea that scientists can change a child’s genome in a predictable way is still pure science fiction. The Genome Project has only just given us our first complete picture of human genetic structure. We don’t know yet (as of the time of this writing, anyway) which genes caused you to have your eye color, type of hair, genetic disease, or a happy disposition. But we’re figuring it out. The controversy on this topic isn’t about what science CAN do, it’s about which science MIGHT be able to do someday. IF we figure out which genes cause inherited diseases, we still may not know what else may be affected if we change them. For instance, maybe science could engineer a perfectly disease-free man by tweaking his genes around – but maybe he wouldn’t be able to reproduce. It’s as if we finally have the alphabet, but haven’t yet written a single word, much less a best-seller. That doesn’t mean these issues aren’t going to come up – they are.

CLONING, STEM CELLS AND ABORTION

Cloning (especially of humans) is touchy subject. Many people don’t seem to understand that if you were to clone a human being, all you would get is the GENE SET OF THE BABY. Exactly what he or she was born with. You could theoretically get a baby Einstein (if his DNA’s available), but his environment and experiences would make him a completely different – new – person. He might look somewhat like the Einstein we knew, but he would have had a completely different life. Perhaps he’d become a rock star obsessed with body-piercings. Or he might not be born at all, because right now cloning has an unacceptable failure rate, not only in the cloning process itself, but in the disabilities it can unintentionally cause. But cloning may get better, as most technologies do, and the issue itself probably won’t go away.

Cloning for the purpose of growing new organs takes us into the area of controversial Stem Cell technology. There are some cells in each of us that are ‘undifferentiated,’ that is, they haven’t made up their minds what to be yet. By removing some of these cells from you, and implanting them in a human egg which has had it’s own DNA removed, and waiting for it to grow (exactly as the first few cells of a new human would grow), it’s theoretically possible that enough cells could be grown to make the organ you are in need of. The organ grown this way wouldn’t be rejected as ‘foreign’ by your body. People needing organ transplants might be able to get them without waiting for someone who is compatible to donate them. The controversy is partly due to the fact that it isn’t even known yet if this can be done successfully, and partly from the fact that once this human "egg" is growing it has the potential to grow into a human being. Perhaps you can see where this is headed. By causing the cells to turn into a heart or a kidney, have we aborted a human life? Of course, it wouldn’t be a ‘natural’ human, having only one set of DNA. It would, in fact, if allowed to develop, be a clone. Again, we’re not there yet, but this issue is another one that won’t go away.

What about the idea of cloning meat? What if we could get all the prime beef we want and no cow had to die? Would this satisfy the vegetarians of conscience? Will we refuse to eat it because it’s ‘unnatural?’ We need to think about where we heading.

I’ve noticed that doctors who perform legal abortions are often attacked, even killed, by religious people but religious people are hardly ever killed by doctors. Abortion is another issue that’s been around at least as long as prostitution, but in our time has become a controversy. Since ancient times, a woman who was raped, too poor to support any more children, was impregnated through prostitution, or was simply unmarried has been not only permitted but helped along to abort the unwanted pregnancy. The methods weren’t always successful (crocodile dung suppositories were popular in Egypt), and often lead to the mother’s death. When medical technology made it possible to abort the unwanted child without harm to the mother, we passed legislation that such an abortion could only be performed if to carry the child to term would endanger the woman’s life. Unfortunately, some have chosen to use it in place of birth control. In some places, legislation allows abortion simply because the mother would be inconvenienced. This is not the fault of the doctors. It’s the fault of the man and woman who conspired in impregnation through negligence, then refused to accept responsibility for it. The powerful urge to mate is part of our human make-up. It’s easier to use birth control than to get people to stop. However, even if we grant that they should have been more careful, now that the deed is done, if she thinks pregnancy is inconvenient, what’s she going to think of 2am feedings, diapers, the cost of schooling, and all the other tasks of parenthood? I wouldn’t want to be that woman’s child. And I’m not willing to take her child into my home to be raised as my own. How can you (and why would you) legislate that a woman must raise a child when she has neither the means nor the desire to do so?

Now that we have a ‘morning after’ pill that can stop a pregnancy if there’s been an ‘accident,’ this becomes simply an issue of education. But interestingly, the Christian church is still offended due to their belief that ‘all life is sacred.’ But if all life is sacred, how can they defend bombing clinics? This idea of ‘sacredness’ doesn’t seem to extend to actual living beings which might be contained in or located near such clinics.

It has been common practice in many cultures in human history to carry a child to term, and if it doesn’t meet the parents’ requirements (for example, if it isn’t perfect, or isn’t a boy), it was simply carried to the nearest wilderness and left to die. Before we had laws about such things, if we knew of someone who wanted a child, and we had an extra, we’d just hand them over.

The reason we originally celebrated a ‘birthday,’ also called a ‘naming-day’ was because children were so likely to die in infancy that we didn’t bother naming them until they’d reached a year or two of age. This idea that a child’s life is sacred (especially unborn children) is new to our species. This is why it’s not covered in our religious ‘codes.’ There’s nothing against abortion in the Bible.

THE ETHICS OF OUR TIME IV

PLEASE DON’T FEED THE.. http://www.woostercollective.com/humansa.jpg

BEING TESTED BEYOND ONE’S ABILITY TO ENDURE

There’s no doubt that some people can endure some amazing things. But ultimately we’re only flesh and blood, and we do break. Not all of us can endure amazing hardships all the time. That’s where Death comes in. But there are some things worse than death.

MENTAL ILLNESS

The adage “You will not be tested beyond your ability to endure” is often quoted by the religious out of context. The passage is: “No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13)

This passage doesn’t say we won’t be tested beyond our ability to endure, it says we won’t be TEMPTED beyond what we can bear. This life has other tests besides the temptation to break the ten commandments. There are some trials the human mind cannot bear, and it breaks. Mental illness is often caused by cruel trauma or extreme tragedy the mind simply can’t cope with. Perhaps the religious would feel a break with sanity is “a way out,” but to be institutionalized or otherwise imprisoned and/or to be unable to care for one’s own basic needs does not seem a very graceful “way out.”

It is worth noting that the mentally-ill may believe that God speaks to them. It is also worth noting that many of the religious claim that God speaks to them, too.

SUICIDE

It is often said of suicides that they should have had more consideration for their friends and families. But the fact that they committed suicide is a very clear message that they felt their friends and families could not or would not help them. When someone commits suicide because death is a better alternative than living, maybe we should ask ourselves what we did to make them think they couldn’t turn to us for help. How did they come to feel to so desperately alone, so completely without hope of any future happiness? To them, it seemed perfectly justified. This doesn’t happen when people feel loved – whether or not you loved them may be irrelevant to whether or not they felt loved. So “Shower the people you love with love” while ye may.

EUTHANASIA

When someone has died after a long illness, it’s common to hear the phrase, “At least the suffering is over,” and as trite as it may sound, that’s saying a lot! When someone we love is reduced by illness or injury to a state of non-awareness, or to a state of perpetual pain and suffering, how can we justify using extraordinary medical means to keep them alive? What is our justification for prolonging their suffering? If one is unconscious, you may think they experience something like dreaming, and wouldn’t that be nice, but what if it’s a nightmare? How long would you want that to go on? Is our own lack of personal courage worth more than their peace and dignity? Euthanasia is another of those ancient pastimes (like prostitution and abortion) which have always taken place, but are simply not spoken of. If one of my loved ones comes to be in this position, I hope I will have the personal courage to let them go, and vice versa.

WHAT IS SO GREAT ABOUT ENDURING?

We all must end. How much we suffer will not change this outcome. How long we suffer will not change it. How noble we are in the face of it will not it. Nothing we can do will change this outcome. Since there is no clear proof of what happens after death, it would be wrong to justify prolonging life in hope of some future, unknowable, possibly non-existent reward? This person is suffering NOW. In Biblical times it was probably rare for people to linger on in illness for very long (due to secondary infection if nothing else), and this topic simply didn't come up. "Thou Shall Not Kill" has nothing to do with this subject, and was never even dreamt of in Biblical philosophy.

THE ETHICS OF OUR TIME III

EVOLUTION, THEORY OF

This is one of those cases where science has really dropped the ball. To the layman, “Theory” equates directly with “Idea.” So the “Idea of Evolution” doesn’t seem to merit very serious consideration. But actually, it’s not an idea; it’s proven. Do you think that if Darwin had only been publishing an idea, it would have taken the world by storm? Even in his time, there was proof. So science could start by cleaning up its language; a word doesn’t mean what it says in the dictionary, it means what people think it means. If you’re talking to the non-scientist, they’re not generally that interested in your “ideas.”

Another flaw in the science; the parents, grandparents and preachers of every stripe who are arguing against you probably did not learn evolution in school. Any good layman’s book on evolution will get across the idea that it’s almost impossible for humans to grasp the times involved in the process of evolution, or what sort of “random chance” could possibly have resulted in human beings. The flaw is, you need to educate the adults before you’ll be allowed to educate the children.

I recommend that anyone who wasn’t taught evolution in school try to read a book on it – or pressure one of these “science” channels to do a really good expose. Sir Richard Dawkins (though he is openly atheist) has a gift for explaining things of a scientific nature so that anyone can understand them, and his many books do a good job. Before you continue arguing against it, you should find out exactly what evolution is.

THE ETHICS OF OUR TIME II

FAITH HEALING

Let’s put “Faith Healing” into two categories; 1) Those that take place in front of a crowd of strangers, and 2) Those which are private.

1) Those that take place in front of a crowd of strangers. Surely it’s understandable that when a ‘healer’ is holding a big service everyone expects there to be a healing. Surely it’s not too far a stretch for the ‘healer’ to be certain there will be a healing which everyone will see; after all, the revenue to pay for his chosen arena, retinue and lifestyle will be generated in direct proportion to how many successful healings there are seen to be. We shouldn’t be surprised when we find out that at least some of these healings have been faked.

2) Those which are private. Some level of belief, either in one’s doctor, one’s medicine, one’s god, or a certain location can have a profound healing effect. This is the stuff stage healers wish they could get on a regular basis; cancerous tumors disappearing, bodily systems regenerating, diseases disappearing, all kinds of miraculous stuff. But in these cases it isn’t the intervention of a healer that worked, it was, as a famous teacher once said, “Your faith [that] has healed you.” This is commonly called The Placebo Effect by scientists. The fact that the word “placebo” is contained in it is in no way meant to imply that the effect isn’t real. It has generated some bad feelings, possibly because we think we’ve been cheated of real medicine. But as long as it worked, why should it matter? It’s been shown that if people don’t believe in their doctor or other healing agent, even the real medicine can fail to do its intended job.

No rights in videos, no profit being made:





You meet a man who says he always tells the truth. He lies. What is there to discuss? He takes the pittance of the widow and spends it on luxury. Any questions?

THE ETHICS OF OUR TIME

Ethics are the reason behind the law. Ancient laws were made in support of ancient ethics, and we still keep many of them around. But although mankind hasn’t changed in many ways, there have been many, many changes to our world. It used to be taken for granted that one would earn a living as one’s father did. Can you imagine? It was taken for granted that one would marry. It was taken for granted one would marry someone in your shared race, religion and culture. It was taken for granted that you would produce offspring and they would do exactly the same. These things are no longer supportable. In addressing the ethics of our time, we must consult together to determine what is best for us all. And these are issues that WILL be solved, either by reasoning cooperation or by our silence. How will our present sciences and religions help us know what to do? Today, New Age Spiritualism:

NEW AGE SPIRITUALISM

New Age Spiritualism is not really all that new. Since the 1800s, there’s been a new type of paganism, usually based on the oldest type of animism, that is, belief in “pure ethereal spirit…diffused throughout nature…thought to animate all matter.” Helena Petovna Blavatsky, one of the more famous founders of the doctrine of Theosophy (late 1800s CE), held that “All religions are attempts by the “Spiritual Hierarchy” to help humanity in evolving to greater perfection.” Clearly, this has not happened unless perfection can be equated with technology. But this New Age Mysticism may have provided a much-needed relief to those who were no longer comfortable in the bosom of conventional religion. This “new” or substitute religion has a lot more freedom, imagination, and individual input is more respected. That can make it a very pretty trap.

Listen, anyone can take an “inner journey” of the imagination and become queen of the hedgehogs with a crown of diamonds and with the right cues may even be able to find and sustain healing there (sometimes with the right combination of “offerings” and physical, mental or musical routines). But this experience comes strictly from your self and whomever is talking, drumming, etc. NOT from the “spirit realm.” There is no more evidence of a spirit realm than there is of angels. Spiritualist schemes are so vague and have been discredited so often it's amazing that people still buy into them. But maybe it’s the next step after religion, where you at least begin to explore your own mind – there are some amazing things in our minds. Technology now allows us to see almost “into” the mind (without yet having any idea what “mind” is). It show us that whether we see an actual rose or are asked to remember a rose, exactly the same places in the brain light up. So “who” is it that’s deciding one is real and one is remembered? Whoever or whatever it is, it doesn’t seem to be in the brain, but only in the mind.

Lately some spiritualists are preaching about a “Secret” which can make you wealthy beyond your imagination, so long as you can sustain the intention to gain it. But, the only people I see “imagining themselves to wealth” are those who are selling something.* We don’t live in a paradise, and dreaming is not a “super-power.” Here’s how you get wealth:

1) Inherit it
2) Win it
3) Marry it
4) Steal it
5) Work really hard for a really long time
6) Save more, no unnecessary spending – or fun
*7) Find something you can get cheap and sell high

That’s the Secret.

Bottom line; it's okay to put some thought into your day, but your intentions won't change the laws of physics or the balance of the economy.