Two men are sitting in a bar. Both are alcoholics, both having lost their families and destroyed their lives. One man says to the other, "Being an alcoholic has done nothing for us but bring misery. This is no good for us." The other man responds, "I'm not going to listen to you because you don't practice what you preach. You are as bad an alcoholic as me. Who are you to criticise?" The first man closes his mouth and they order another drink in silence.
Meanwhile, across town, two men in a similar situation are sitting in another bar. The first man says the same thing. The second man, however, responds, "You are absolutely right. It's a hard thing for you to admit. I will support you and you can support me, and together we can change."
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Sunday, July 15, 2012
On Parenting, Discipline and Corporal Punishment
I was physically abused by both my mother and stepfather and didn't realize it was abuse until I was an adult. I got married to a woman with 3 kids and fully intended to use physical means to discipline them. But each time they did something wrong, I found talking to them or sending them to their rooms was sufficient and reserved spanking for a more serious offense at a later date. After five years, when I had never had to resort to it, I clued in that it is not necessary. Raising children, or being in a relationship, or holding your own at the workplace, or maintaining relationships with your friends, are all psychological games, ones that you are losing if you are resorting to violence.
I remember the absolute love and trust I had for my mother as far back as Icould put thoughts together. I remember distinctly trying to imagine that I had been born to another mother and couldn't. The thought terrified me. What happened to that pure trust? Destroyed. Something changed in that relationship and the disciplinarians of our society would place accountability on a child, where others place it in the hands of responsible adults. Who has a greater capacity for understanding cause and effect relationships? Who is more capable of making choices? I have had to spend a significant portion of my adult life trying to forgive and get back to loving her. What a waste of time. And when she lost my trust, she was no longer an effective teacher. Her entire role in my life was compromised. Same goes for an abusive husband. How many times will he hit his wife before the trust is broken and the relationship changed? I have had many teachers, and my mom stands by wondering why it seems I trust everyone but her.
It's not that I think parents who spank their kids are evil. Just ignorant. I wasn't very good at parenting either. It takes work and when they are frustrating, it is human nature to hit them. But that doesn't make it morally defensible, or something we should encourage. We are supposed to be admitting our mistakes and improving. To be a good and effective parent, you have to give yourself the equivalent of a PhD in that topic, by finding out what really works. I wouldn't even undertake to tile my kitchen without studying to find out how to do it right, yet most parents attempt to stumble through the most complex and important task on the planet and their children are ones whose entire future is founded on their parents' choices. If people are always saying how going through military boot camp gave them skills needed for their lives, how much more important is it to have education, nurture and the foundations of trust and genuine social connections in early home life?
Many parents frame this debate as if the only two options are to hit their kids or let them run wild, when there are myriad other ways to communicate with children. When parents defend corporal punishment of their kids, I am blown away, especially with how adamantly they defend the practice. I mean, surely you love your children. If I am telling you that there is a way that you can avoid having to hit them, and that there are practices that are much more effective for teaching and disciplining them, wouldn’t you jump at that opportunity? If I said that you had to work ten times as hard, but that you get a hundred times better results in the end, wouldn’t that be worth it? They are your children, so you decide. How you answer should tell you what kind of parent you are. Be honest with yourself. No one’s judging you but you… oh, and your kids when they grow up.
I remember the absolute love and trust I had for my mother as far back as Icould put thoughts together. I remember distinctly trying to imagine that I had been born to another mother and couldn't. The thought terrified me. What happened to that pure trust? Destroyed. Something changed in that relationship and the disciplinarians of our society would place accountability on a child, where others place it in the hands of responsible adults. Who has a greater capacity for understanding cause and effect relationships? Who is more capable of making choices? I have had to spend a significant portion of my adult life trying to forgive and get back to loving her. What a waste of time. And when she lost my trust, she was no longer an effective teacher. Her entire role in my life was compromised. Same goes for an abusive husband. How many times will he hit his wife before the trust is broken and the relationship changed? I have had many teachers, and my mom stands by wondering why it seems I trust everyone but her.
It's not that I think parents who spank their kids are evil. Just ignorant. I wasn't very good at parenting either. It takes work and when they are frustrating, it is human nature to hit them. But that doesn't make it morally defensible, or something we should encourage. We are supposed to be admitting our mistakes and improving. To be a good and effective parent, you have to give yourself the equivalent of a PhD in that topic, by finding out what really works. I wouldn't even undertake to tile my kitchen without studying to find out how to do it right, yet most parents attempt to stumble through the most complex and important task on the planet and their children are ones whose entire future is founded on their parents' choices. If people are always saying how going through military boot camp gave them skills needed for their lives, how much more important is it to have education, nurture and the foundations of trust and genuine social connections in early home life?
Many parents frame this debate as if the only two options are to hit their kids or let them run wild, when there are myriad other ways to communicate with children. When parents defend corporal punishment of their kids, I am blown away, especially with how adamantly they defend the practice. I mean, surely you love your children. If I am telling you that there is a way that you can avoid having to hit them, and that there are practices that are much more effective for teaching and disciplining them, wouldn’t you jump at that opportunity? If I said that you had to work ten times as hard, but that you get a hundred times better results in the end, wouldn’t that be worth it? They are your children, so you decide. How you answer should tell you what kind of parent you are. Be honest with yourself. No one’s judging you but you… oh, and your kids when they grow up.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Philosophy of Stargate
There are 214 episodes and it gets better as it goes along The tv show continues the story of the film. In it, the original humans evolved in another galaxy and had a civil war. One side became religious fundamentalists who wanted to destroy all who opposed them. They were called the Ori. The others were known as the Ancients or the Alterans. They moved to the Milky way Galaxy but the Ori created a plague and began wiping them out. The Alterans found a way to Ascend to a higher plane as spiritual beings with godlike powers. They believed that they should not interfere with lower beings while the Ori began to be worshiped by lowers as gods. The Ori promise their adherents ascension, but are merely using them to draw energy from their devotion.
The Alterrans do not interefere because of the strong temptation to allow one's self to be worshipped, which is like a drug to them, but once in a while a few of them bend the rules a little bit.
The ancients developed the stargates before their ascension and they developed the city of Atlantis, which was in antarctica, but was also a space ship. They removed the city to the Pegasus Galaxy, and this is the basis of Stargate Atlantis tv show.
The show has ties to all of the ancient mythologies. One of the characters himself becomes ascended with the help of one of the ascended ones
In the show, they allow information about the top secret stargate program to be leaked in the form of a hollywood movie and tv show, because it provides cover for the real program. The producers hint at the concept that there is some truth to the fictional show.
Many of these concepts are similar to Gnostic myths where the Aeons, or the spiritual beings from higher levels, sometimes interact with humans to give them knowledge to assist their ascension. Some of them believe that the god of the old testament was really a lesser deity who merely tried to take credit for someone else's creation and use the role of supreme being to oppress mankind.
Some of the philosophical concepts of the show mirror my philosphy, which is that any being that desires to be worshipped, is thus not worthy of it. The show constantly asks the question "what is a god?"
There are different definitions of god and it is important to know which definition is implied when the term is used. To some, merely being Creator is enough to be God. To others, being all powerful makes one a god, or being all knowing or all loving. These are independant concepts and independant attributes that are not necessarily mutally exclusive. Some definitions insist upon all of the above, while others include just a few of them.
The Alterrans do not interefere because of the strong temptation to allow one's self to be worshipped, which is like a drug to them, but once in a while a few of them bend the rules a little bit.
The ancients developed the stargates before their ascension and they developed the city of Atlantis, which was in antarctica, but was also a space ship. They removed the city to the Pegasus Galaxy, and this is the basis of Stargate Atlantis tv show.
The show has ties to all of the ancient mythologies. One of the characters himself becomes ascended with the help of one of the ascended ones
In the show, they allow information about the top secret stargate program to be leaked in the form of a hollywood movie and tv show, because it provides cover for the real program. The producers hint at the concept that there is some truth to the fictional show.
Many of these concepts are similar to Gnostic myths where the Aeons, or the spiritual beings from higher levels, sometimes interact with humans to give them knowledge to assist their ascension. Some of them believe that the god of the old testament was really a lesser deity who merely tried to take credit for someone else's creation and use the role of supreme being to oppress mankind.
Some of the philosophical concepts of the show mirror my philosphy, which is that any being that desires to be worshipped, is thus not worthy of it. The show constantly asks the question "what is a god?"
There are different definitions of god and it is important to know which definition is implied when the term is used. To some, merely being Creator is enough to be God. To others, being all powerful makes one a god, or being all knowing or all loving. These are independant concepts and independant attributes that are not necessarily mutally exclusive. Some definitions insist upon all of the above, while others include just a few of them.
Monday, April 25, 2011
The Invention and Evolution of Early Christianity
The following consists of a very concise overview of some key parts of the history of the formation of the New Testament and rise of Christian Theology. It is taken mainly from a series of books and lectures by Professor Bart Ehrman, one of the preeminent authorities in New Testament scholarship.
Jesus and his twelve apostles were illiterate, Aramaic speaking Jews, like most of the lower classes. They did not write the New Testament. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written long after the fact, and by Greek speaking, literate persons. They are not written by the people the books are attributed to, but later disciples of theirs. Decades of changes took place in oral tradition before the stories were written down.
Mark was written about around 60 AD, Matthew and Luke written closely another two decades later, and John written around 90-100 AD. Paul was the first author to begin writing and he followed one of the four main Christian traditions, referred to as Proto-Orthodox, because it is the tradition that later became known as Orthodox. However, he only has seven undisputed letters, the rest of which are forgeries, often even in contradiction to what Paul writes. The Acts of the Apostles was written by the author of Luke, and gives a revised history of Paul that conflicts with the accounts he gives in his own letters. It has the objective of rewriting history to give a smoother transition from the period of Jesus to that of the Apostles working together with one harmonious message, and to minimize the dissentions and difficulties between the established apostles who had known Jesus personally and the new apostle Paul, who had not. This was because Paul was far from universally accepted as a genuine witness for Christ.
The remainder of the New Testament epistles attributed to the other apostles are all later forgeries. The Revelation of John is not a forgery because the book never claims to be written by any particular John.
Then there are many other gospels, letters and Apocalypses, as well as Acts written by other people. The Acts of Peter, or John or further acts of Paul and his female disciple Thecla. These books were viewed in many communities as sacred scripture for hundreds of years in some cases, and were very much a part of religious belief and worship.
There were four main catagories of Christians, but they subdivided into different sects with some different particular beliefs, traditions, stories and books of sacred scripture. There were the Ebionites, the Marcionites, the Gnostics and the Proto-Orthodox. The Ebionites were strongly rooted in the Jewish Tradition, while the Marcionites were staunchly anti Jewish. The Gnostics had a range of different beliefs. Christian beliefs varied on every point of doctrine, even touching the number of Gods. Was there one god, or three gods, or 365 gods? Was Jesus a man, a prophet, a demigod or God himself?
The books of the New Testament do not solve this problem, because they are as varied. Matthew is more Ebionite, while Luke is more Marcionite and John more influenced by Gnostic thought. They are not chapters in one book by one author, and should not be treated as such. Each author is writing a complete work that represents his own understanding, and they are each different. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a basis for their own records, and they freely changed words that Jesus said, reordered the series of events in order to make certain points. For instance, was Jesus silent when he went to the cross, indicating that he was wholly divine or did he suffer in anguish? Each account creates a very different picture, reflecting differing theologies of the times. When people read them as harmonious, they are in fact creating in their minds a fifth gospel that is unlike any of the others.
The history of how and why the 27 books that currently form the New Testament were selected is intriguing as well, and does anything but solve the problem of authenticity. Each of the books have their own authenticity for their particular doctrines and adherents. The manner in which the 27 "authoritative" books were selected does not indicated anything but a very human process. Then we come into the problem of poor translation, transliteration, and record keeping over the centuries that introduced thousands of errors, ommission, insertions and changes, some of which are insignificant, but many of which are profoundly significant for understanding the original meaning.
What is currently regarded as "Orthodox", literally "correct doctrine", was heavily influenced by Greek and Roman pagan cultures. Concepts such as the Virgin Birth and Christ being both God and man are well attested in Pagan traditions but are very foreign to Judaism.
What we have is evidence that Jesus lived, had followers and taught with many sayings and parables. The best we can do to track down what he actually said involves making educated guesses. Scholars give more weight to a saying if it has multiple attestation (appears in more than one source), if it was recorded earlier (in Mark as opposed to John) and if the language and style is consistent with a first century Aramaic speaking Jew living in Palestine, rather than consistent with a Greek speaking scholar in Athens, Rome, or somewhere else in the Mediterranean.
There is no indication that Jesus ever thought of himself as being the Messiah, or literal son of God, that he would die for the sins of the world or that he was the incarnation of God. The words Messiah and Son of God are typical references to very human kings or leaders, and their use in the early gospels do not indicate the meanings that were later attributed to them. These terms should be interpreted the way their authors understood them, such as the way they were used in the Hebrew bible to refer to men such as King David, also referred to as Son of God.
You can also trace an evolution or progression of ideas in the four gospels. As each subsequent book is written, the miracles become more elaborate and fanciful, and the importance of Jesus becomes greater, until in John he is said to have existed with God in the beginning and in fact was God. Also each successive book is more anti-Jewish than the last, reflecting the growing division between the two religions.
For more information about the evolution of Christianity, I suggest reading the books by New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, "The Quest for the Historical Jesus" and "Jesus, Interrupted". Also Elaine Pagels' "The Origin of Satan" is a very good read that adaquately addresses the invention of that character.
Interestingly, this information is not priviliged, but has been taught in most every mainstream seminary for over a century. It is just not the kind of message that is appropriate to be taught from the pulpit. Once pasters and priests get to their respective congregations, they seem to quietly and conveniently forget this information.
Jesus and his twelve apostles were illiterate, Aramaic speaking Jews, like most of the lower classes. They did not write the New Testament. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written long after the fact, and by Greek speaking, literate persons. They are not written by the people the books are attributed to, but later disciples of theirs. Decades of changes took place in oral tradition before the stories were written down.
Mark was written about around 60 AD, Matthew and Luke written closely another two decades later, and John written around 90-100 AD. Paul was the first author to begin writing and he followed one of the four main Christian traditions, referred to as Proto-Orthodox, because it is the tradition that later became known as Orthodox. However, he only has seven undisputed letters, the rest of which are forgeries, often even in contradiction to what Paul writes. The Acts of the Apostles was written by the author of Luke, and gives a revised history of Paul that conflicts with the accounts he gives in his own letters. It has the objective of rewriting history to give a smoother transition from the period of Jesus to that of the Apostles working together with one harmonious message, and to minimize the dissentions and difficulties between the established apostles who had known Jesus personally and the new apostle Paul, who had not. This was because Paul was far from universally accepted as a genuine witness for Christ.
The remainder of the New Testament epistles attributed to the other apostles are all later forgeries. The Revelation of John is not a forgery because the book never claims to be written by any particular John.
Then there are many other gospels, letters and Apocalypses, as well as Acts written by other people. The Acts of Peter, or John or further acts of Paul and his female disciple Thecla. These books were viewed in many communities as sacred scripture for hundreds of years in some cases, and were very much a part of religious belief and worship.
There were four main catagories of Christians, but they subdivided into different sects with some different particular beliefs, traditions, stories and books of sacred scripture. There were the Ebionites, the Marcionites, the Gnostics and the Proto-Orthodox. The Ebionites were strongly rooted in the Jewish Tradition, while the Marcionites were staunchly anti Jewish. The Gnostics had a range of different beliefs. Christian beliefs varied on every point of doctrine, even touching the number of Gods. Was there one god, or three gods, or 365 gods? Was Jesus a man, a prophet, a demigod or God himself?
The books of the New Testament do not solve this problem, because they are as varied. Matthew is more Ebionite, while Luke is more Marcionite and John more influenced by Gnostic thought. They are not chapters in one book by one author, and should not be treated as such. Each author is writing a complete work that represents his own understanding, and they are each different. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a basis for their own records, and they freely changed words that Jesus said, reordered the series of events in order to make certain points. For instance, was Jesus silent when he went to the cross, indicating that he was wholly divine or did he suffer in anguish? Each account creates a very different picture, reflecting differing theologies of the times. When people read them as harmonious, they are in fact creating in their minds a fifth gospel that is unlike any of the others.
The history of how and why the 27 books that currently form the New Testament were selected is intriguing as well, and does anything but solve the problem of authenticity. Each of the books have their own authenticity for their particular doctrines and adherents. The manner in which the 27 "authoritative" books were selected does not indicated anything but a very human process. Then we come into the problem of poor translation, transliteration, and record keeping over the centuries that introduced thousands of errors, ommission, insertions and changes, some of which are insignificant, but many of which are profoundly significant for understanding the original meaning.
What is currently regarded as "Orthodox", literally "correct doctrine", was heavily influenced by Greek and Roman pagan cultures. Concepts such as the Virgin Birth and Christ being both God and man are well attested in Pagan traditions but are very foreign to Judaism.
What we have is evidence that Jesus lived, had followers and taught with many sayings and parables. The best we can do to track down what he actually said involves making educated guesses. Scholars give more weight to a saying if it has multiple attestation (appears in more than one source), if it was recorded earlier (in Mark as opposed to John) and if the language and style is consistent with a first century Aramaic speaking Jew living in Palestine, rather than consistent with a Greek speaking scholar in Athens, Rome, or somewhere else in the Mediterranean.
There is no indication that Jesus ever thought of himself as being the Messiah, or literal son of God, that he would die for the sins of the world or that he was the incarnation of God. The words Messiah and Son of God are typical references to very human kings or leaders, and their use in the early gospels do not indicate the meanings that were later attributed to them. These terms should be interpreted the way their authors understood them, such as the way they were used in the Hebrew bible to refer to men such as King David, also referred to as Son of God.
You can also trace an evolution or progression of ideas in the four gospels. As each subsequent book is written, the miracles become more elaborate and fanciful, and the importance of Jesus becomes greater, until in John he is said to have existed with God in the beginning and in fact was God. Also each successive book is more anti-Jewish than the last, reflecting the growing division between the two religions.
For more information about the evolution of Christianity, I suggest reading the books by New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, "The Quest for the Historical Jesus" and "Jesus, Interrupted". Also Elaine Pagels' "The Origin of Satan" is a very good read that adaquately addresses the invention of that character.
Interestingly, this information is not priviliged, but has been taught in most every mainstream seminary for over a century. It is just not the kind of message that is appropriate to be taught from the pulpit. Once pasters and priests get to their respective congregations, they seem to quietly and conveniently forget this information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)