![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
i should've listened for a dress size
Apr. 16th, 2007 | 08:00 am
The Moon
Fear. Illusion. Imagination. Bewilderment.
Saturday morning SH and I sat in bed talking over my story. Came up with a pagefull of ideas and thoughts. I only had to jump up and down and scream 'Don't hijack my characters!' once. I've already figured out the second leg of my plot (once I realized that it didn't matter if the Admiral was alive or dead, everything fell into place) and now I'm working on the last leg - getting everything linked and flowing. Two huge problems that I'm going to have (been struggling with as I write up scenes) are:
1) Keeping my pirate from sounding/being/in any way remotely similar to Jack Fucking Sparrow. I'm thinking of re-reading some pirate books (Under the Black Flag, first) and maybe picking a historical pirate to work off of. If I can combine that with the elements I already have for him, maybe his character will solidify enough for me that I'll be able to avoid falling into anything resembling a Hollywood pirate voice. Getting his appearence solidly down was a huge help, as is thinking about his name. Here's hoping, because the character is too important to leave out.
2) I've got at least two distinct cultures working here, as well as the narrative voice and the individual characters' voices. This is going to be a bitch; I want to avoid obviously created slang and self-conscious culture, but I'm going to have to have not only individual dialects/educational levels/etc. but also words to describe tons of new situations from the pov of people who have lived with them for generations. I think I can do it, but it's going to be a shitload of intense work.
Edit: Note to self - remember zero-g when it comes to disabilities.
I turned in my two-week notice to the Safford church on Sunday. Naturally, they picked that day to give me a gift to say thank you for the work I've been doing. Way for me to feel crappy. It's a tacky little cherub fountain, but if I can find a place to plug it in near my piano, it'll probably be a really good way to help keep it from drying out so much. And the spirit in which it was meant is appreciated. But I'm still quitting. I'm probably going to quit the Duncan church too, in spite of Jimnpat. I don't mind when it's just them, but the real pastor who comes in every other week drives me nuts. And is it personal? You bet. I've never been able to forgive/forget what he said about my dad, and although I can take people telling me I'm going to hell, I resent it when it's directed at the dead. Particularly dead who were better people in life than the creepy little self-righteous bastard condemning them. Yep, angry.
Tomorrow is the last day of tax work, except for my gentleman with the extension and the lío increíble. I'll be happy to have the time back, I've been going nuts not having enough time to write. And I'll get to see a little more of SH before he gets reassigned to Chandler.
SH is on a crusade. :) It's a good thing.
(167.0)
Fear. Illusion. Imagination. Bewilderment.
Saturday morning SH and I sat in bed talking over my story. Came up with a pagefull of ideas and thoughts. I only had to jump up and down and scream 'Don't hijack my characters!' once. I've already figured out the second leg of my plot (once I realized that it didn't matter if the Admiral was alive or dead, everything fell into place) and now I'm working on the last leg - getting everything linked and flowing. Two huge problems that I'm going to have (been struggling with as I write up scenes) are:
1) Keeping my pirate from sounding/being/in any way remotely similar to Jack Fucking Sparrow. I'm thinking of re-reading some pirate books (Under the Black Flag, first) and maybe picking a historical pirate to work off of. If I can combine that with the elements I already have for him, maybe his character will solidify enough for me that I'll be able to avoid falling into anything resembling a Hollywood pirate voice. Getting his appearence solidly down was a huge help, as is thinking about his name. Here's hoping, because the character is too important to leave out.
2) I've got at least two distinct cultures working here, as well as the narrative voice and the individual characters' voices. This is going to be a bitch; I want to avoid obviously created slang and self-conscious culture, but I'm going to have to have not only individual dialects/educational levels/etc. but also words to describe tons of new situations from the pov of people who have lived with them for generations. I think I can do it, but it's going to be a shitload of intense work.
Edit: Note to self - remember zero-g when it comes to disabilities.
I turned in my two-week notice to the Safford church on Sunday. Naturally, they picked that day to give me a gift to say thank you for the work I've been doing. Way for me to feel crappy. It's a tacky little cherub fountain, but if I can find a place to plug it in near my piano, it'll probably be a really good way to help keep it from drying out so much. And the spirit in which it was meant is appreciated. But I'm still quitting. I'm probably going to quit the Duncan church too, in spite of Jimnpat. I don't mind when it's just them, but the real pastor who comes in every other week drives me nuts. And is it personal? You bet. I've never been able to forgive/forget what he said about my dad, and although I can take people telling me I'm going to hell, I resent it when it's directed at the dead. Particularly dead who were better people in life than the creepy little self-righteous bastard condemning them. Yep, angry.
Tomorrow is the last day of tax work, except for my gentleman with the extension and the lío increíble. I'll be happy to have the time back, I've been going nuts not having enough time to write. And I'll get to see a little more of SH before he gets reassigned to Chandler.
SH is on a crusade. :) It's a good thing.
(167.0)
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
donde están los ladrones
Apr. 10th, 2007 | 11:16 am
3 - Five of Cups
5 - The Empress
So, here I have another pairing: that which is above, and that which is below. The goal and the shadow, the known and the unacknowledged, the desire and the influence. The Empress is about mothering, abundance, senses, sexual satifaction, fertility (see today's entry with the Nine of Cups). The Five of Cups is about grief, loss, and regret. The strong sexual themes in this open reading and in the cards I've been drawing are leading me to musing on my sex life - but really, what is there to say? I have a great sexual relationship with SH, and don't want to change it. But the idea that grief, loss, and regret are underlying my goals here...
Creativity as a form of motherhood, as productivity? Perhaps. And there is definitely a connection between the loss of my father and the ways in which I have not been writing lately. It was Dad who really gave me the impetus to start writing fiction, too. So there's a lot tied up in there. Is grief just a deeper meaning to what I want, and is it a fear of death that's driving me to worry about where I'm going, what I'm accomplishing these days? Not unlikely. And the Empress representing what could come into being, what I want, a possible future. Is this who I want to be? Combined with the High Priestess, it certainly comes off as an idealization of womanhood, female sexuality.
Further Thoughts
Five of Cups: Feeling deprived of love. Grieving. Wishing for what might have been. (The Lovers is an opposing card.) Every loss opens new possibilities for growth. The Golden Tarot verion. The black angel that hovers - behind, before, and below me in this reading are angels, hovering. A thought - mourning loss of faith? Looking to become the Empress because I've lost what I could believe in of Christianity? That fits in much better with the heart of the matter, my insistance on fighting this silly battle. Embrace the feelings you run from.
The Empress: Responding to nature. Reinforced by both the Lovers and the Nine of Cups. Also, a Major Arcana card, one of three, all on the same basic theme, all connected in the reading. One half of the female archetype. False sophistications and pleasures take us far from our roots. Riches go with a generous and open spirit. The Golden Tarot image - there are angels above, as well. All around, but not at the heart of the matter. Gentle and affectionate, gracious and elegant. Spend some time outdoors. A new life, a new love, a new creation is fragile - it must be nurtured. All things need time to gestate and sprout.
Together: I know I need to let go of the pointless argumentation that's been taking up so much of my time. Here I can see some of my goals - goals which may well be valuable - undercut and pulled off course by the basis of grief and regret. Whether it's Dad's death, or my own loss of faith, I need to get over it and start moving.
5 - The Empress
So, here I have another pairing: that which is above, and that which is below. The goal and the shadow, the known and the unacknowledged, the desire and the influence. The Empress is about mothering, abundance, senses, sexual satifaction, fertility (see today's entry with the Nine of Cups). The Five of Cups is about grief, loss, and regret. The strong sexual themes in this open reading and in the cards I've been drawing are leading me to musing on my sex life - but really, what is there to say? I have a great sexual relationship with SH, and don't want to change it. But the idea that grief, loss, and regret are underlying my goals here...
Creativity as a form of motherhood, as productivity? Perhaps. And there is definitely a connection between the loss of my father and the ways in which I have not been writing lately. It was Dad who really gave me the impetus to start writing fiction, too. So there's a lot tied up in there. Is grief just a deeper meaning to what I want, and is it a fear of death that's driving me to worry about where I'm going, what I'm accomplishing these days? Not unlikely. And the Empress representing what could come into being, what I want, a possible future. Is this who I want to be? Combined with the High Priestess, it certainly comes off as an idealization of womanhood, female sexuality.
Further Thoughts
Five of Cups: Feeling deprived of love. Grieving. Wishing for what might have been. (The Lovers is an opposing card.) Every loss opens new possibilities for growth. The Golden Tarot verion. The black angel that hovers - behind, before, and below me in this reading are angels, hovering. A thought - mourning loss of faith? Looking to become the Empress because I've lost what I could believe in of Christianity? That fits in much better with the heart of the matter, my insistance on fighting this silly battle. Embrace the feelings you run from.
The Empress: Responding to nature. Reinforced by both the Lovers and the Nine of Cups. Also, a Major Arcana card, one of three, all on the same basic theme, all connected in the reading. One half of the female archetype. False sophistications and pleasures take us far from our roots. Riches go with a generous and open spirit. The Golden Tarot image - there are angels above, as well. All around, but not at the heart of the matter. Gentle and affectionate, gracious and elegant. Spend some time outdoors. A new life, a new love, a new creation is fragile - it must be nurtured. All things need time to gestate and sprout.
Together: I know I need to let go of the pointless argumentation that's been taking up so much of my time. Here I can see some of my goals - goals which may well be valuable - undercut and pulled off course by the basis of grief and regret. Whether it's Dad's death, or my own loss of faith, I need to get over it and start moving.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Don't Fuck With Portia
Apr. 10th, 2007 | 08:54 am
...a.k.a. The Merchant of Venice.
Watched the Al Pacino movie version again. Got into a long discussion with SH on the various aspects of the movie. It's an interesting version because there aren't many cuts, and the ones that are there are for the most part subtle, but radically change the direction of the scenes. For example, act 3 scene 3, the movie has Antonio declare: "Let him alone, I'll follow him no more with bootless prayers. He seeks my life - his reason well I know." After the description of the anti-Jew culture at the beginning of the film, the many visual moments emphasizing bigotry, and the careful editing of the worst of Shylock's moments, this comes across as Antonio realizing the consequences of his bigotry. In the play however, he goes on, "I oft delivered from his forfeitures Many that have at times made moan to me. Therefore he hates me." Bit different. The movie makes Shylock's offer to loan the money to Antonio more ambiguous - did he mean to go through with the bond or not before his daughter left? (Although they kept in Jessica's declaration that he did.)
The original play is one of Shakespeare's most fascinating, and it's a pity that the anti-Semetic question scares people off of it so often. I think that Shakespeare was anti-Semetic, like every good Protestant of the time. I have no doubt that he believed, to one degree or another, that the Jews were Christ-killers justly damned to hell. However, Shakespeare was no theologian nor philosopher, nor is there evidence of any rabid, personal belief against Jews - just the opposite, in fact. If The Merchant of Venice was written as a response to The Jew of Malta, it has a very different thrust and meaning. Although the sympathetic portrayal of Shylock is relatively recent, the meat of it is there in the writing. The "Has not a Jew hands?" speech is a brilliant condemnation of both bigotry and hypocrisy; the sly equivalence between slavery and cruelty in the trial scene is something that might well have displeased Shakespeare's audience greatly, if it weren't in the mouth of an obvious villain.
IMO, Shakespeare, whose great genius lies partially in his characterization, was too honest and too acute of an observer and writer not to kick against the accepted discrimination of his day. Three of his greatest plays center around a theme that in Shakespeare's day was far from the moral fad it is today: Othello, The Taming of the Shrew, The Merchant of Venice. He was not a crusader in any sense of the term; he was a conventional, popular writer; but there is in his writing the recognition that people are not simple and cannot be classified simply. Although the movie's alterations make Shylock and Antonio more palatable to modern audiences, the movie-makers did not invent the taste and feel of the injustice that Shylock addressed. Shakespeare certainly did not agree with all of his characters, but he understood.
Which is not to say that Shakespeare didn't think all Jews would be better off spiritually and materially as Christians. The trial scene is one of the neatest allegories I've ever read, a blazingly effective demonstration of the Protestant doctrine of Law vs. Gospel.
I'm also glad they chose to highlight a homosexual interpretation of the relationship between Antonio and Bassanio. I just don't think the relationship makes sense without it; even given a cultural framework of manly relationships being more important than romantic ones. Although as an illustration of the cultural shift from marriage as a feudal/business contract to an important personal relationship between two people, the conflict between Portia and Antonio is just lovely.
Nine of Cups
Again, a card about sexual pleasure, wish fulfillment, and satisfaction.
SH wants me to read The Faerie Queene so we can talk about it. Suddenly I have way too much on my reading list.
(169.5) Dammit.
Be o' good cheer, for truly I think you are damned. - William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act 3, Scene 5.
Watched the Al Pacino movie version again. Got into a long discussion with SH on the various aspects of the movie. It's an interesting version because there aren't many cuts, and the ones that are there are for the most part subtle, but radically change the direction of the scenes. For example, act 3 scene 3, the movie has Antonio declare: "Let him alone, I'll follow him no more with bootless prayers. He seeks my life - his reason well I know." After the description of the anti-Jew culture at the beginning of the film, the many visual moments emphasizing bigotry, and the careful editing of the worst of Shylock's moments, this comes across as Antonio realizing the consequences of his bigotry. In the play however, he goes on, "I oft delivered from his forfeitures Many that have at times made moan to me. Therefore he hates me." Bit different. The movie makes Shylock's offer to loan the money to Antonio more ambiguous - did he mean to go through with the bond or not before his daughter left? (Although they kept in Jessica's declaration that he did.)
The original play is one of Shakespeare's most fascinating, and it's a pity that the anti-Semetic question scares people off of it so often. I think that Shakespeare was anti-Semetic, like every good Protestant of the time. I have no doubt that he believed, to one degree or another, that the Jews were Christ-killers justly damned to hell. However, Shakespeare was no theologian nor philosopher, nor is there evidence of any rabid, personal belief against Jews - just the opposite, in fact. If The Merchant of Venice was written as a response to The Jew of Malta, it has a very different thrust and meaning. Although the sympathetic portrayal of Shylock is relatively recent, the meat of it is there in the writing. The "Has not a Jew hands?" speech is a brilliant condemnation of both bigotry and hypocrisy; the sly equivalence between slavery and cruelty in the trial scene is something that might well have displeased Shakespeare's audience greatly, if it weren't in the mouth of an obvious villain.
IMO, Shakespeare, whose great genius lies partially in his characterization, was too honest and too acute of an observer and writer not to kick against the accepted discrimination of his day. Three of his greatest plays center around a theme that in Shakespeare's day was far from the moral fad it is today: Othello, The Taming of the Shrew, The Merchant of Venice. He was not a crusader in any sense of the term; he was a conventional, popular writer; but there is in his writing the recognition that people are not simple and cannot be classified simply. Although the movie's alterations make Shylock and Antonio more palatable to modern audiences, the movie-makers did not invent the taste and feel of the injustice that Shylock addressed. Shakespeare certainly did not agree with all of his characters, but he understood.
Which is not to say that Shakespeare didn't think all Jews would be better off spiritually and materially as Christians. The trial scene is one of the neatest allegories I've ever read, a blazingly effective demonstration of the Protestant doctrine of Law vs. Gospel.
I'm also glad they chose to highlight a homosexual interpretation of the relationship between Antonio and Bassanio. I just don't think the relationship makes sense without it; even given a cultural framework of manly relationships being more important than romantic ones. Although as an illustration of the cultural shift from marriage as a feudal/business contract to an important personal relationship between two people, the conflict between Portia and Antonio is just lovely.
Nine of Cups
Again, a card about sexual pleasure, wish fulfillment, and satisfaction.
SH wants me to read The Faerie Queene so we can talk about it. Suddenly I have way too much on my reading list.
(169.5) Dammit.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Why'd we give up the orgies for a bunch of colored eggs?
Apr. 8th, 2007 | 07:41 pm
SH is gone, on his bi-weekly trip to the city, so I'm alone again and fighting or embracing depression, whichever it may be. At any rate, I've spent way too much time doing way too little and feeling empty.
I'm getting more and more dissatisfied with playing for the churches I play for, especially this morning when part of the sermon was the claim that 'everyone here is saying that they believe Jesus is risen.' Emphatically not, and you know it, pastor. Still, I'd hate to let the people who count down - people who are not the pastor. Also, the reading today, or rather one of the readings today, Isaiah 65:17-25, speaks specifically on the idea that people in heaven would forget all about their loved ones in hell ('the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind. But be glad and rejoice forever...'), one of the most abhorrent things about Christianity. Then the reading goes on to talk about this 'new heaven and new earth' in terms that simply haven't happened and can't happen, period. 'No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days,' etc. - clearly, this hasn't happened post-Jesus, nor does it describe heaven, since it goes on to say that people will die, including sinners, in this new earth. So, WTF? Oh yes, having a great deal of trouble releasing this futile antagonism.
Yesterday, SH and I made hot truffles (mmm...hot truffles), and he took a bunch to Mom and the M&Ms while I took a bunch to church. They disappeared. Ophelia got pepper up her nose and couldn't stop coughing/laughing, so hey, entertainment included. I'd like to try making mint truffles as well as the hot pepper kind, and SH wants to try for sugar-free. Bet we could do it using Stevia.
Peter and Ursula were at M&Ms, and liked the truffles too. We introduced them to Killer Bunnies when they were here for Christmas, and made them play by our rules, which includes yelling 'Bunny!' every time you put down a bunny card. *grin* Peter got a Killer Bunny set of his own for his birthday and yelled 'Bunny!' at us...they're starting to think about having kids, the silly darlings. Guess that rules out boarding SH, but they have a dog, anyway, so it wouldn't work. I have to send them the truffle recipe.
King of Wands
Charismatic, forceful, bold, inspiring.
Oh, and (169.0), so it looks like cutting lunch down to salads. I'll have to start that tomorrow though, since today I ate a truffle. Or two.
I'm getting more and more dissatisfied with playing for the churches I play for, especially this morning when part of the sermon was the claim that 'everyone here is saying that they believe Jesus is risen.' Emphatically not, and you know it, pastor. Still, I'd hate to let the people who count down - people who are not the pastor. Also, the reading today, or rather one of the readings today, Isaiah 65:17-25, speaks specifically on the idea that people in heaven would forget all about their loved ones in hell ('the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind. But be glad and rejoice forever...'), one of the most abhorrent things about Christianity. Then the reading goes on to talk about this 'new heaven and new earth' in terms that simply haven't happened and can't happen, period. 'No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days,' etc. - clearly, this hasn't happened post-Jesus, nor does it describe heaven, since it goes on to say that people will die, including sinners, in this new earth. So, WTF? Oh yes, having a great deal of trouble releasing this futile antagonism.
Yesterday, SH and I made hot truffles (mmm...hot truffles), and he took a bunch to Mom and the M&Ms while I took a bunch to church. They disappeared. Ophelia got pepper up her nose and couldn't stop coughing/laughing, so hey, entertainment included. I'd like to try making mint truffles as well as the hot pepper kind, and SH wants to try for sugar-free. Bet we could do it using Stevia.
Peter and Ursula were at M&Ms, and liked the truffles too. We introduced them to Killer Bunnies when they were here for Christmas, and made them play by our rules, which includes yelling 'Bunny!' every time you put down a bunny card. *grin* Peter got a Killer Bunny set of his own for his birthday and yelled 'Bunny!' at us...they're starting to think about having kids, the silly darlings. Guess that rules out boarding SH, but they have a dog, anyway, so it wouldn't work. I have to send them the truffle recipe.
King of Wands
Charismatic, forceful, bold, inspiring.
Oh, and (169.0), so it looks like cutting lunch down to salads. I'll have to start that tomorrow though, since today I ate a truffle. Or two.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
St. George and the Burden of Existence
Apr. 8th, 2007 | 05:48 pm
Knight of Swords
Ten of Wands
These were the first and second cards from my open reading. I can't imagine a neater, more succinct way to state what I've been doing to myself lately: overburdening myself fighting imaginary beasts, using my intellect in unbalanced ways that ultimately get me nowhere. My life's been dominated by petty, useless wrangling over esoteric theological questions that bring me no relief, peace, or satisfaction. Brave, certainly, talented, yes, but useful? No. Not when carried to this extreme, not when centered on something so unfruitful. I see the knight here as tilting at a windmill, lost. This is the central issue. I'm worrying about what I can't change and what is more, over something that I don't see as important. It's become a burden rather than a joy to engage in debate and philosophical musings. I don't need to prove the essential vacuity and moral bankruptcy of Christianity. I'm afraid of Christians, what they preach, what they're doing to the world, but I'm giving it and them far too much power over me.
This wrangle needs to end, it's become an addiction.
Further meditations:
On the knight:
Sudden hostility is part of this card's character. Fearlessness, but also lack of compassion. Too hasty, out of control. Too smart for his own good. Sharp mind and sharp tongue. He is the wind itself.
On the Ten of Wands:
Blockage of power. What was once wise and well-used power out of control, becoming tyranny. Learn when enough is enough. Victory is unlikely or even impossible. Leave responsibilities unfinished (see card 4, the Page of Coins). Using up the energy you started with, having nothing left.
Bottom line? Petty. Conflicted. Pointless.
Ten of Wands
These were the first and second cards from my open reading. I can't imagine a neater, more succinct way to state what I've been doing to myself lately: overburdening myself fighting imaginary beasts, using my intellect in unbalanced ways that ultimately get me nowhere. My life's been dominated by petty, useless wrangling over esoteric theological questions that bring me no relief, peace, or satisfaction. Brave, certainly, talented, yes, but useful? No. Not when carried to this extreme, not when centered on something so unfruitful. I see the knight here as tilting at a windmill, lost. This is the central issue. I'm worrying about what I can't change and what is more, over something that I don't see as important. It's become a burden rather than a joy to engage in debate and philosophical musings. I don't need to prove the essential vacuity and moral bankruptcy of Christianity. I'm afraid of Christians, what they preach, what they're doing to the world, but I'm giving it and them far too much power over me.
This wrangle needs to end, it's become an addiction.
Further meditations:
On the knight:
Sudden hostility is part of this card's character. Fearlessness, but also lack of compassion. Too hasty, out of control. Too smart for his own good. Sharp mind and sharp tongue. He is the wind itself.
On the Ten of Wands:
Blockage of power. What was once wise and well-used power out of control, becoming tyranny. Learn when enough is enough. Victory is unlikely or even impossible. Leave responsibilities unfinished (see card 4, the Page of Coins). Using up the energy you started with, having nothing left.
Bottom line? Petty. Conflicted. Pointless.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
I had this talk with God last night...
Apr. 3rd, 2007 | 02:23 pm
I was at the end of my rope. Steady job, happy marriage, well-adjusted kids, interesting hobbies - there just wasn't any meaning in life. Something had to give. At two in the morning, after 19 Red Bulls, I had a personal revelation. Bible God showed up for an interview.
Sir? Sir? Can you tell me what your qualifications are, as God?
Hm. I'd have to say...my perfect justice, goodness, and unconditional love, combined with my really breathtaking omnipotence.
Could you tell us a little about your justice?
Sure, justice means that everyone deserves eternal punishment.
Er - everyone?
Yep, totally uniform. Can't get more perfect than that, now, can you?
But, well, what do you mean? You mean that someone who murders is punished forever and ever?
You're following me just fine.
Um, and someone who discovers a cure for a debilitating disease gets punished forever and ever?
You got it.
Everyone. No matter what, everyone gets the same punishment. This is justice?
It's perfect justice, my son. I'm not surprised you don't get it, after all, you're only human. If it makes you feel better, you might find a group that'll explain to you how the eternal firey punishment is actually made a little easier for nicer people.
Um, but is it? Easier, I mean? What do you say?
BORED now. I think I've covered everything important.
But - but - that doesn't fit any definition of justice, anywhere, ever.
Stop getting so hung up on the whole justice thing, will ya? I mean, I've got unconditional love, too. Get out of jail free, man! Just meet my conditions and I'll offer you all that unconditional lovin'. Whoo, baby.
Ooookay. What are the conditions for receiving your 'unconditional' love?
Ooh, ooh, I know that one. Um, faith. Or maybe works. Or both, ya know, or maybe I just pick the ones I want. Or was it that I'm going to save everyone? Something like that.
What?
Grab a clue. I'm the all-perfect, all-just, all-lovin' goodness machine. Just look what I did for My People! Am I good, or am I good?
I take it 'good' doesn't really mean 'good,' either.
Sure it does. You just aren't capable of understanding these things, you powerless little speck, not unless I explain it to you. Hey, that's why I'm here.
It is?
Yep. See, I've got this cunning plan to save you from death.
Really? How does it work?
First, I wait until you actually die. Then I leap into action.
Help? Is anyone here?
Jesus is always here for you!
Anyone else?
At this point, the vision faded, although I thought I heard someone shouting something about fish. I woke up in a cold sweat. How right all the true believers were! How foolish I was not to listen! And so I have given up wife, family, worldly wealth. I live now under the bed in my bunker, my shotgun at my side. I'm sending this out to warn you, to warn you all.
God is real. He's batshit insane. And he's coming for you. But there's still hope.
He's got the IQ of a small dried pea.
:-)
Sir? Sir? Can you tell me what your qualifications are, as God?
Hm. I'd have to say...my perfect justice, goodness, and unconditional love, combined with my really breathtaking omnipotence.
Could you tell us a little about your justice?
Sure, justice means that everyone deserves eternal punishment.
Er - everyone?
Yep, totally uniform. Can't get more perfect than that, now, can you?
But, well, what do you mean? You mean that someone who murders is punished forever and ever?
You're following me just fine.
Um, and someone who discovers a cure for a debilitating disease gets punished forever and ever?
You got it.
Everyone. No matter what, everyone gets the same punishment. This is justice?
It's perfect justice, my son. I'm not surprised you don't get it, after all, you're only human. If it makes you feel better, you might find a group that'll explain to you how the eternal firey punishment is actually made a little easier for nicer people.
Um, but is it? Easier, I mean? What do you say?
BORED now. I think I've covered everything important.
But - but - that doesn't fit any definition of justice, anywhere, ever.
Stop getting so hung up on the whole justice thing, will ya? I mean, I've got unconditional love, too. Get out of jail free, man! Just meet my conditions and I'll offer you all that unconditional lovin'. Whoo, baby.
Ooookay. What are the conditions for receiving your 'unconditional' love?
Ooh, ooh, I know that one. Um, faith. Or maybe works. Or both, ya know, or maybe I just pick the ones I want. Or was it that I'm going to save everyone? Something like that.
What?
Grab a clue. I'm the all-perfect, all-just, all-lovin' goodness machine. Just look what I did for My People! Am I good, or am I good?
I take it 'good' doesn't really mean 'good,' either.
Sure it does. You just aren't capable of understanding these things, you powerless little speck, not unless I explain it to you. Hey, that's why I'm here.
It is?
Yep. See, I've got this cunning plan to save you from death.
Really? How does it work?
First, I wait until you actually die. Then I leap into action.
Help? Is anyone here?
Jesus is always here for you!
Anyone else?
At this point, the vision faded, although I thought I heard someone shouting something about fish. I woke up in a cold sweat. How right all the true believers were! How foolish I was not to listen! And so I have given up wife, family, worldly wealth. I live now under the bed in my bunker, my shotgun at my side. I'm sending this out to warn you, to warn you all.
God is real. He's batshit insane. And he's coming for you. But there's still hope.
He's got the IQ of a small dried pea.
:-)
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Why does a sine wave?
Apr. 3rd, 2007 | 09:46 am
SH has been trying to get me over my math block. I never had any trouble with getting good grades in math - I can manipulate those little bastard numbers and get the desired results - and I fully understand the usefulness of math - it's just always seemed to me that you can only, functionally use and understand math (past arithmetic) after years and years and years of rote memorization and meaningless formulas. I've never been interested enough in say, power engineering, to spend 12 years reciting meaningless strings of letters until someday, suddenly, I can say 'Aha! And this is what it means!' Not worth the payoff, right? But I get very very frustrated with my ignorance on the subject, because I can see the usefulness and importance of it. I snarl a lot over math.
So I asked SH to explain what the hell trigonometry is to me, and we went around and around and around most of the day ('Well, see, a sine is the ratio of...' 'Goddamit, I know that. But what the hell is a sine?') until we hit a few points where I actually understood, in the sense of getting the concept and being able to relate its derivation and use to other facts in the world, of a couple of puzzlers. SH has patience coming out of every orifice, I swear. We never did come up with a good definition of trigonometry, but at least I can understand why someone would want to have a sine wave hanging around. I had little triangles dancing through my head all afternoon.
So we decided to try to get ahold of the Saxon math course textbooks, and work our way through them. We'll have to wait until after SH passes his PE, though, because he's got enough to study at the moment.
We also had a huge long rambling discussion on literature, symbolism, mythology, and Christianity in relation to Spencer's Fairy Queene which I enjoyed immensely. Much of what we talked about related to how Spencer could (as many writers of the time did) so blithely mix Greek and Christian mythology. But most of what we object to in the mix comes from an entirely foreign mode of thought, the idea that logic and/or scientific verification should apply to that kind of poetic theology. Whether the Greek gods were past indulgences of God, or misleading metaphors, or active daemons (depending on the writer's bent), the idea that Greek mythology directly conflicts with Christianity is reserved for today. In part it is perhaps the modern habit of thinking in terms of things that can be proved or disproved, perhaps recognizing the utility of critical thought and applying it broadly, perhaps simply the wider exposure that communication has brought to history and theology. In previous centuries, when knowledge was more difficult to get at, why explain to the masses what was the province of poets and scholars? No doubt Spencer understood his own approach to metaphor; the church was by and large unaffected; there was no need to codify or defend it on the level of the general public.
"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." L.P. Hartley, The Go-Between
I'm re-reading Post Captain for fun after finishing Nelson's Trafalgar. I might re-read Israfel, too, to brush up on Poe's life, but I probably shouldn't indulge too far since I tend to get caught up in re-hashing old thoughts instead of experiencing new ones (lazy). Speaking of which, Mom nearly had a cow when SH bought an audio copy of a book by Oliver North. She's definitely of the opinion that no one should pollute their minds by listening to/reading anything that they don't know is totally in agreement with what they think beforehand.
Mom's so deep in that Egyptian river right now that I hardly know what to say to her. She's not retiring, because she's decided that's not what she wants to do. Nothing to do with having a huge tax bill to pay. Nope, uh-huh. She's having panic attacks and being sick because she doesn't like her house, or because she's afraid of SH's health problems, or because school is busy. Nothing to do with grief, or financial pressure, or overstraining herself because she needs to keep from thinking. Nope, if SH would just stop mentioning any health problems, she'd be fine. And Lizzie's getting better. (Going on forty years now, but that turn around is going to happen any day. Yep.) To be honest, that bit of denial's been going on so long it's hardly news, but at this rate there won't be a topic out there that isn't verboten one way or another. Molly's in tax trouble too, which is why she wants to buy Mom's house - more of a tax break than renting in California. More power to them, I guess.
We watched MirrorMask last night. Much better than I expected! Although, with Gaiman as a writer, it had to be better than the movies Henson wrote himself. It never ceases to amaze me that creative people think writing is something anyone can do. The main actress was very good, the story was well-paced and interesting, the fantasy was fun, the artwork was great. It wasn't an all-time favorite, but I'll watch it again.
Two of Wands
Personal power, boldness, originality.
(170.5) Did not do well this weekend, haven't done particularly well today. But still, no candy and no soda. Need to keep that up for at least two weeks, then I'll worry about making a new rule. Making a new habit, really.
So I asked SH to explain what the hell trigonometry is to me, and we went around and around and around most of the day ('Well, see, a sine is the ratio of...' 'Goddamit, I know that. But what the hell is a sine?') until we hit a few points where I actually understood, in the sense of getting the concept and being able to relate its derivation and use to other facts in the world, of a couple of puzzlers. SH has patience coming out of every orifice, I swear. We never did come up with a good definition of trigonometry, but at least I can understand why someone would want to have a sine wave hanging around. I had little triangles dancing through my head all afternoon.
So we decided to try to get ahold of the Saxon math course textbooks, and work our way through them. We'll have to wait until after SH passes his PE, though, because he's got enough to study at the moment.
We also had a huge long rambling discussion on literature, symbolism, mythology, and Christianity in relation to Spencer's Fairy Queene which I enjoyed immensely. Much of what we talked about related to how Spencer could (as many writers of the time did) so blithely mix Greek and Christian mythology. But most of what we object to in the mix comes from an entirely foreign mode of thought, the idea that logic and/or scientific verification should apply to that kind of poetic theology. Whether the Greek gods were past indulgences of God, or misleading metaphors, or active daemons (depending on the writer's bent), the idea that Greek mythology directly conflicts with Christianity is reserved for today. In part it is perhaps the modern habit of thinking in terms of things that can be proved or disproved, perhaps recognizing the utility of critical thought and applying it broadly, perhaps simply the wider exposure that communication has brought to history and theology. In previous centuries, when knowledge was more difficult to get at, why explain to the masses what was the province of poets and scholars? No doubt Spencer understood his own approach to metaphor; the church was by and large unaffected; there was no need to codify or defend it on the level of the general public.
"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." L.P. Hartley, The Go-Between
I'm re-reading Post Captain for fun after finishing Nelson's Trafalgar. I might re-read Israfel, too, to brush up on Poe's life, but I probably shouldn't indulge too far since I tend to get caught up in re-hashing old thoughts instead of experiencing new ones (lazy). Speaking of which, Mom nearly had a cow when SH bought an audio copy of a book by Oliver North. She's definitely of the opinion that no one should pollute their minds by listening to/reading anything that they don't know is totally in agreement with what they think beforehand.
Mom's so deep in that Egyptian river right now that I hardly know what to say to her. She's not retiring, because she's decided that's not what she wants to do. Nothing to do with having a huge tax bill to pay. Nope, uh-huh. She's having panic attacks and being sick because she doesn't like her house, or because she's afraid of SH's health problems, or because school is busy. Nothing to do with grief, or financial pressure, or overstraining herself because she needs to keep from thinking. Nope, if SH would just stop mentioning any health problems, she'd be fine. And Lizzie's getting better. (Going on forty years now, but that turn around is going to happen any day. Yep.) To be honest, that bit of denial's been going on so long it's hardly news, but at this rate there won't be a topic out there that isn't verboten one way or another. Molly's in tax trouble too, which is why she wants to buy Mom's house - more of a tax break than renting in California. More power to them, I guess.
We watched MirrorMask last night. Much better than I expected! Although, with Gaiman as a writer, it had to be better than the movies Henson wrote himself. It never ceases to amaze me that creative people think writing is something anyone can do. The main actress was very good, the story was well-paced and interesting, the fantasy was fun, the artwork was great. It wasn't an all-time favorite, but I'll watch it again.
Two of Wands
Personal power, boldness, originality.
(170.5) Did not do well this weekend, haven't done particularly well today. But still, no candy and no soda. Need to keep that up for at least two weeks, then I'll worry about making a new rule. Making a new habit, really.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
The Gospel of Peter
Dec. 14th, 2006 | 07:55 am
Fragment of the Gospel of Peter
Second Fragment of the Gospel of Peter
Main Fragment of the Gospel of Peter
Additional Information on the Gospel of Peter
Second Fragment of the Gospel of Peter
Main Fragment of the Gospel of Peter
Additional Information on the Gospel of Peter
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
You say it's your birthday...well it's my birthday too!
Dec. 5th, 2006 | 11:25 am
This isn't a birthday thought, and I wasn't going to write this down, but it's still bugging me.
Last Sunday I heard a sermon on the annunciation of John's birth. The pastor went to great lengths to try to explain what not one in a hundred of his listeners would have thought to question: Why was Zechariah punished for questioning the angel's message, when Abraham questioned and doubted in the same situation and wasn't punished for it?
Personally, I don't think that he carried off his explanation (he said Zechariah was a priest, which somehow makes him more accountable than the one righteous person god chose to found his own special race of people; go figure) but the disturbing thing was mentioned as a side issue. He said that Abraham doubted god, and went and tried to answer his own prayer by having a child with Hagar. The children of Hagar are the...he paused to let the congregation answer, which they did in ringing tones...Arabs! Wouldn't it have been better if Abraham had not tried to fulfill his own prayer?
Dear almighty christ in a jumped-up side car. How very loving, to declare that an entire race is the result of sinful pride and that everyone would be better off if they'd never been born. And not one voice raised in protest, not even mine (I regret to say...I was flabbergasted and really didn't know what to do. Maybe I'll write the pastor a letter?).
What a black, unloving, hateful thing to say. Is this an unavoidable side effect of having a religion that believes that there is a god who picks and chooses people based on their race? Maybe, at its roots. But it fits perfectly with the OT god, who never hesitates to punish people for being born wrong. I'd love to say that this was an isolated incident involving people who aren't 'real' Christians, but it isn't. These people were friends, neighbors. Good people, people I like. All enthusiastically yelling out 'Arabs!' Fuck. How can you believe that and at the same time believe that god loves every person on earth? The mind boggles. "Yeah, you're the result of sin and we'd all be better off if you never existed, but I love you anyway." Oh, duh, these are the people who believe that god loves everyone and everyone is a worthless, evil, nasty piece of shit. So, guess a little extra vilification can't hurt. Just gives you someone to hate without guilt because they were born wrong. Thanks to the religion of love.
I need an aspirin. Or a drink.
Last Sunday I heard a sermon on the annunciation of John's birth. The pastor went to great lengths to try to explain what not one in a hundred of his listeners would have thought to question: Why was Zechariah punished for questioning the angel's message, when Abraham questioned and doubted in the same situation and wasn't punished for it?
Personally, I don't think that he carried off his explanation (he said Zechariah was a priest, which somehow makes him more accountable than the one righteous person god chose to found his own special race of people; go figure) but the disturbing thing was mentioned as a side issue. He said that Abraham doubted god, and went and tried to answer his own prayer by having a child with Hagar. The children of Hagar are the...he paused to let the congregation answer, which they did in ringing tones...Arabs! Wouldn't it have been better if Abraham had not tried to fulfill his own prayer?
Dear almighty christ in a jumped-up side car. How very loving, to declare that an entire race is the result of sinful pride and that everyone would be better off if they'd never been born. And not one voice raised in protest, not even mine (I regret to say...I was flabbergasted and really didn't know what to do. Maybe I'll write the pastor a letter?).
What a black, unloving, hateful thing to say. Is this an unavoidable side effect of having a religion that believes that there is a god who picks and chooses people based on their race? Maybe, at its roots. But it fits perfectly with the OT god, who never hesitates to punish people for being born wrong. I'd love to say that this was an isolated incident involving people who aren't 'real' Christians, but it isn't. These people were friends, neighbors. Good people, people I like. All enthusiastically yelling out 'Arabs!' Fuck. How can you believe that and at the same time believe that god loves every person on earth? The mind boggles. "Yeah, you're the result of sin and we'd all be better off if you never existed, but I love you anyway." Oh, duh, these are the people who believe that god loves everyone and everyone is a worthless, evil, nasty piece of shit. So, guess a little extra vilification can't hurt. Just gives you someone to hate without guilt because they were born wrong. Thanks to the religion of love.
I need an aspirin. Or a drink.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Another article about the visit to Turkey
Dec. 1st, 2006 | 02:36 pm
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Because it was such a bad article...
Nov. 30th, 2006 | 02:38 pm
Why Wouldn't God Want Adam and Eve to Have Knowledge of Good and Evil?
Why Wouldn't God Want Adam and Eve to Have Knowledge of Good and Evil?
by Rich Deem
Introduction:The Bible says that God created Adam and Eve and put them in a beautiful garden full of trees with good fruit. However, God also created a tree that would give the eater the knowledge of good and evil - commanding Adam and Eve not to eat its fruit. Why would God create something that was banned and, specifically, why would it be a tree whose fruit offered knowledge of good and evil?
Good start, good question.
Why set Adam and Eve up to fail?: Skeptics often complain...
OK, problem. "Skeptics often complain." This is a section of an apologetic website, a section called 'Answers for Atheists.' Using loaded and insulting language in what is supposedly an outreach - if you're trying to give someone answers to something they have problems with, calling them 'complainers' isn't the way. If this isn't aimed at atheists, but instead at theists who want to feel superior, this is the way to go about it.
Secondly, the use of anonymous skeptics. In a limited, unspecific way, this is fine. You don't have to specify which Christians believe that Christ is god. It's fair, when speaking generally, to use a broad label that designates the people you are talking about. But this entire site refers to unspecified, unquoted skeptics or atheists and procedes to give their arguments. Whose arguments? Frequently on this site, the argument used is so truncated or misstated that it is easy to knock down - the old 'Great Spirit' trick, where someone else's beliefs or arguments are dumbed down to make them sound silly. There are plenty of articulate atheists out there. Link to one of them. Address a specific argument.
This article is short, but it is representative of the techniques used over the whole of this website: not one atheist source, not one direct atheist quote is ever dealt with, not one specific atheistic philosophy or challenge is ever met, only the author or authors' paraphrasing of what some unknown atheists believe. It's like reading an 'Answers for Christians' page that never brings up the Bible or refers to a single actual believer. That makes it easy on the authors. They can pick and choose what they want to talk about.
Skeptics often complain that God set Adam and Eve up to fail. However, God had to give Adam and Eve a choice. Without free will to choose, Adam and Eve would have been mere puppets. True love always requires choice. God wanted Adam and Eve to choose to love and trust Him. The only way to give this choice would have been to command something that was not allowed. Since God had planted all the different trees from which we get fruit in the garden, the test was not too difficult. Adam and Eve had plenty to eat and could have chosen to believe God.
Whew. Lots of things here.
No, I don't complain that god set Adam and Eve up to fail. I think the whole story is obviously a early near Eastern myth exploring human and divine nature in symbolic ways.
The problems with regarding it as literal truth - or even as a mythological truth revealing the nature of the Christian god - are quickly danced around and glossed over in a series of breathtakingly simplistic statements that skip all the real problems.
God had to give Adam and Eve a choice. God wanted Adam and Eve to choose to love and trust Him.
No argument with the logic here: if there's nothing to choose, then free will is pretty meaningless. But if God wanted Adam and Eve to choose to love and trust him, he went about it in a very strange way.
The only way to give this choice would have been to command something that was not allowed.
Huh? What? Run that by me again?
Since when is choosing to love someone based on obedience? Love and obedience are two entirely separate concepts which can exist together or apart. If God wanted Adam and Eve to choose to love and trust him, the obvious way to do that is to be worthy of love and trust and to create beings capable of freely appreciating those qualities. Setting up something they are not allowed to do has nothing to do with love.
I think what the author of this article is trying to say is that unless Adam and Eve could act contrary to God's will, they had no true free will, therefore there had to be a contrary option to make their free will real. And, if they had no free will, then they could not freely choose to love. But the creation of free will, and the desire for people to use that free will to love and trust you, are two separate things.
And isn't there a choice right there? They could choose to love God, or not. A genuine, meaningful way to exercise your free will. Adam and Eve could have chosen to be ungrateful, could have chosen to turn away. In fact, Christian tradition states that Satan did exactly this with his free will, falling from pride, not disobedience. Moreover, God has free will, and has it without having received any commands from anyone. A command is not necessary for free will; only an option is necessary.
So why a command not to eat from a tree?
The author by this point has completely dropped the real question, the one he posed at the beginning of the page: Why set Adam and Eve up to fail?
Say that what God really wanted (I don't know how the author knows that what he wanted from Adam and Eve was love, since the Bible doesn't say) was obedience. Then he needs to give a command.
Since God had planted all the different trees from which we get fruit in the garden, the test was not too difficult. Adam and Eve had plenty to eat and could have chosen to believe God.
More problems. First, refering to it, quite reasonably, as a test. Why a test? If what God wanted was blind obedience, without regard to rationality, then creating free will is pointless. If God wanted thoughtful, deliberate obedience in response to his perfect and loving nature - trust - then giving his creation a restriction purposefully created for no other reason than to test them is nonsense.
Yes, Adam and Eve could have chosen not to eat the fruit of the tree. But the author ignores most of the story: Adam and Eve initially obeyed, then were tempted to eat the fruit. If God just wanted to create an option - obey me or not - then there's no reason to put more pressure on them. The choice alone wasn't enough, they had to withstand temptation too. Why? Why set Adam and Eve up to fail? God didn't have to permit the serpent to come into the garden. He didn't have to give it the ability to talk. He could have given Adam and Eve strength of will, or been there to answer questions when the snake came up with his arguments. He didn't have to tempt them at all - the choice was there, their free will established. So why allow the serpent to approach them in the first place? When used in modern law enforcement, this technique is called entrapment. If someone is living quietly by the laws they are given, then they are law-abiding. They do not need to be tested or tempted to prove that they are law-abiding.
Another point that the author doesn't deal with here is the information supplied by God and the information supplied by the snake. The debate on whether or not Adam and Eve could understand what death is could go on - who cares. Say that, by the magic nature of God's words, they fully comprehended what death is. God told them, 'in that day you will surely die.'
The snake told them, 'you will not surely die...for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'
So what happened? They became like God, knowing good and evil. They did not die. Way to build that love and trust.
God's words can be taken to refer to spiritual death. There's no justification in the text for this. Also, you have to believe that Adam and Eve comprehended spiritual death from God's words. Also, that spiritual death really means first a spiritual deadness during life, followed by physical death, followed by an eternity of suffering in hell, not anything really like death as we know it. However, God at the same time meant that he would introduce simple physical death at some future point, which according to Paul entered the world along with sin. Christians differ on whether or not animals died before the Fall of Man. OK, say that Adam and Eve fully understood that they were risking all that, and that the story just doesn't make it clear.
Or say that it didn't matter what they understood, that they knew that obedience was the right thing, and that information was irrelevant. Free will which goes between choosing mindless obedience or eternal damnation isn't exactly a gift. If they should've obeyed God simply because he is God, they didn't need free will.
God punished Adam, Eve, all the plants and animals of the garden, the snake, all human descendents and the earth itself in a multitude of ways, essentially creating life as we know it. (Among other punishments, pain in childbirth was given to women, because of Eve's sin. Pain in having kittens is...just the way cats are. Or something like that.) He didn't warn Adam and Eve about any of these consequences beforehand. Neither did the snake.
And we haven't answered the question: why was all this necessary?
Why did God choose the knowledge of good and evil?Since everything else God planted in the garden was good, the natural choice of something to choose from would be knowledge of evil.
This is another, huh? moment. The natural choice? This writer apparently thinks he has a line on the way god thinks. I can think of endless alternatives to knowledge of evil. The writer goes on to state how God's plan was for Adam and Eve not to be influenced by evil. So, return to the question. Why choose the knowledge of good and evil? Why not a tree that created boils (if you have to go with something that isn't 'good'), or something that took away their ability to see God, or simply damned them to separation from god rather than giving them knowledge? If god didn't want them to have knowledge or experience of evil, he didn't have to create that tree.
When speculating on why god did something, there are only two real answers: I don't know, or he doesn't exist. If you believe this story is truth, then you have no believable explanation why knowledge is something that god didn't want us to have. There just isn't one, it's a but I trust God to do what is right moment. If you don't believe in god, then the explanation is more interesting, an early parable about the dangers of progress and knowledge, especially the danger to authorities.
God's plan for Adam and Eve was to enjoy each other and their fellowship with Him without the influence of evil.
Screwed that up, didn't he.
God did not want Adam and Eve to experience evil or even know about it.
So he created a tree that would give them knowledge of it, set it down where they could get to it, told them not to touch, all the while knowing that they would, and let the snake talk them into it.
However, Satan had already rebelled against God and then tempted Eve to join him in rebellion against God. So, Adam and Eve gained knowledge of the difference between good and evil directly. The knowledge of evil brought fear and shame to Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:10).2 It was not a good thing, since it ruined their innocent relationship with God.
Believe it or not, this is how the article ends. The author has completely failed to answer the questions that were the basis for this article. He never addresses the question at all, seemingly thinking that the statement The only way to give this choice would have been to command something that was not allowed is enough to explain the whole loaded set up, and saying that it obviously had to be knowledge of good and evil, although god doesn't want anyone to know about evil. Did I miss something here?
Return to innocence?: This is somewhat speculative, but I believe that we believers will lose our knowledge of evil in heaven. Isaiah 25:83 says that God will wipe all the tears from us and our reproach will be removed (see also Revelation 7:17 and 21:4).4 We will be able to experience and enjoy God directly5 without influence or knowledge of sin and evil.
Hm.
So, if we'll be completely innocent, will we no longer have free will?
If not, why was it such a good thing to have in the first place?
And if we do have free will, will there be a way to fall from heaven?
And if not, what will be different from Adam and Eve's situation? Why did they have to have a chance to fall in order to have free will if we won't have to have the same chance in heaven?
It seems that either free will isn't all that important, if we'll lose it in heaven, or it can exist without all the pain and terror, in which case Adam, Eve, and the Fall weren't unavoidable.
Take a deep breath, step back, and look it over...
Thing is, most 'skeptics' aren't talking about free will or god's ineffable purposes when they question the knowledge of good and evil. I, at least, am talking about the anti-knowledge, anti-achievement bias that shows up in so much religious literature. Why is it knowledge that is regarded as dangerous or evil, why in this particular story does god deliberately restrict knowledge? This is the main point: that knowledge, and the ability to choose between good and evil because of our recognition and knowledge of both, is fundamental to what it means to be human. It is the basis for choice, for free will, for improvement, for learning.
Not only does this author miss this point, he actually looks forward to loss of knowledge as a good thing.
There are terrible things I wish I didn't know. But my ignorance would not make them go away, nor would it make my life better; by knowing them, I can make better choices. I want to know the truth however ugly or unwelcome. To exist in protected innocence is to be a pet, not a human being.
Why Wouldn't God Want Adam and Eve to Have Knowledge of Good and Evil?
by Rich Deem
Introduction:The Bible says that God created Adam and Eve and put them in a beautiful garden full of trees with good fruit. However, God also created a tree that would give the eater the knowledge of good and evil - commanding Adam and Eve not to eat its fruit. Why would God create something that was banned and, specifically, why would it be a tree whose fruit offered knowledge of good and evil?
Good start, good question.
Why set Adam and Eve up to fail?: Skeptics often complain...
OK, problem. "Skeptics often complain." This is a section of an apologetic website, a section called 'Answers for Atheists.' Using loaded and insulting language in what is supposedly an outreach - if you're trying to give someone answers to something they have problems with, calling them 'complainers' isn't the way. If this isn't aimed at atheists, but instead at theists who want to feel superior, this is the way to go about it.
Secondly, the use of anonymous skeptics. In a limited, unspecific way, this is fine. You don't have to specify which Christians believe that Christ is god. It's fair, when speaking generally, to use a broad label that designates the people you are talking about. But this entire site refers to unspecified, unquoted skeptics or atheists and procedes to give their arguments. Whose arguments? Frequently on this site, the argument used is so truncated or misstated that it is easy to knock down - the old 'Great Spirit' trick, where someone else's beliefs or arguments are dumbed down to make them sound silly. There are plenty of articulate atheists out there. Link to one of them. Address a specific argument.
This article is short, but it is representative of the techniques used over the whole of this website: not one atheist source, not one direct atheist quote is ever dealt with, not one specific atheistic philosophy or challenge is ever met, only the author or authors' paraphrasing of what some unknown atheists believe. It's like reading an 'Answers for Christians' page that never brings up the Bible or refers to a single actual believer. That makes it easy on the authors. They can pick and choose what they want to talk about.
Skeptics often complain that God set Adam and Eve up to fail. However, God had to give Adam and Eve a choice. Without free will to choose, Adam and Eve would have been mere puppets. True love always requires choice. God wanted Adam and Eve to choose to love and trust Him. The only way to give this choice would have been to command something that was not allowed. Since God had planted all the different trees from which we get fruit in the garden, the test was not too difficult. Adam and Eve had plenty to eat and could have chosen to believe God.
Whew. Lots of things here.
No, I don't complain that god set Adam and Eve up to fail. I think the whole story is obviously a early near Eastern myth exploring human and divine nature in symbolic ways.
The problems with regarding it as literal truth - or even as a mythological truth revealing the nature of the Christian god - are quickly danced around and glossed over in a series of breathtakingly simplistic statements that skip all the real problems.
God had to give Adam and Eve a choice. God wanted Adam and Eve to choose to love and trust Him.
No argument with the logic here: if there's nothing to choose, then free will is pretty meaningless. But if God wanted Adam and Eve to choose to love and trust him, he went about it in a very strange way.
The only way to give this choice would have been to command something that was not allowed.
Huh? What? Run that by me again?
Since when is choosing to love someone based on obedience? Love and obedience are two entirely separate concepts which can exist together or apart. If God wanted Adam and Eve to choose to love and trust him, the obvious way to do that is to be worthy of love and trust and to create beings capable of freely appreciating those qualities. Setting up something they are not allowed to do has nothing to do with love.
I think what the author of this article is trying to say is that unless Adam and Eve could act contrary to God's will, they had no true free will, therefore there had to be a contrary option to make their free will real. And, if they had no free will, then they could not freely choose to love. But the creation of free will, and the desire for people to use that free will to love and trust you, are two separate things.
And isn't there a choice right there? They could choose to love God, or not. A genuine, meaningful way to exercise your free will. Adam and Eve could have chosen to be ungrateful, could have chosen to turn away. In fact, Christian tradition states that Satan did exactly this with his free will, falling from pride, not disobedience. Moreover, God has free will, and has it without having received any commands from anyone. A command is not necessary for free will; only an option is necessary.
So why a command not to eat from a tree?
The author by this point has completely dropped the real question, the one he posed at the beginning of the page: Why set Adam and Eve up to fail?
Say that what God really wanted (I don't know how the author knows that what he wanted from Adam and Eve was love, since the Bible doesn't say) was obedience. Then he needs to give a command.
Since God had planted all the different trees from which we get fruit in the garden, the test was not too difficult. Adam and Eve had plenty to eat and could have chosen to believe God.
More problems. First, refering to it, quite reasonably, as a test. Why a test? If what God wanted was blind obedience, without regard to rationality, then creating free will is pointless. If God wanted thoughtful, deliberate obedience in response to his perfect and loving nature - trust - then giving his creation a restriction purposefully created for no other reason than to test them is nonsense.
Yes, Adam and Eve could have chosen not to eat the fruit of the tree. But the author ignores most of the story: Adam and Eve initially obeyed, then were tempted to eat the fruit. If God just wanted to create an option - obey me or not - then there's no reason to put more pressure on them. The choice alone wasn't enough, they had to withstand temptation too. Why? Why set Adam and Eve up to fail? God didn't have to permit the serpent to come into the garden. He didn't have to give it the ability to talk. He could have given Adam and Eve strength of will, or been there to answer questions when the snake came up with his arguments. He didn't have to tempt them at all - the choice was there, their free will established. So why allow the serpent to approach them in the first place? When used in modern law enforcement, this technique is called entrapment. If someone is living quietly by the laws they are given, then they are law-abiding. They do not need to be tested or tempted to prove that they are law-abiding.
Another point that the author doesn't deal with here is the information supplied by God and the information supplied by the snake. The debate on whether or not Adam and Eve could understand what death is could go on - who cares. Say that, by the magic nature of God's words, they fully comprehended what death is. God told them, 'in that day you will surely die.'
The snake told them, 'you will not surely die...for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'
So what happened? They became like God, knowing good and evil. They did not die. Way to build that love and trust.
God's words can be taken to refer to spiritual death. There's no justification in the text for this. Also, you have to believe that Adam and Eve comprehended spiritual death from God's words. Also, that spiritual death really means first a spiritual deadness during life, followed by physical death, followed by an eternity of suffering in hell, not anything really like death as we know it. However, God at the same time meant that he would introduce simple physical death at some future point, which according to Paul entered the world along with sin. Christians differ on whether or not animals died before the Fall of Man. OK, say that Adam and Eve fully understood that they were risking all that, and that the story just doesn't make it clear.
Or say that it didn't matter what they understood, that they knew that obedience was the right thing, and that information was irrelevant. Free will which goes between choosing mindless obedience or eternal damnation isn't exactly a gift. If they should've obeyed God simply because he is God, they didn't need free will.
God punished Adam, Eve, all the plants and animals of the garden, the snake, all human descendents and the earth itself in a multitude of ways, essentially creating life as we know it. (Among other punishments, pain in childbirth was given to women, because of Eve's sin. Pain in having kittens is...just the way cats are. Or something like that.) He didn't warn Adam and Eve about any of these consequences beforehand. Neither did the snake.
And we haven't answered the question: why was all this necessary?
Why did God choose the knowledge of good and evil?Since everything else God planted in the garden was good, the natural choice of something to choose from would be knowledge of evil.
This is another, huh? moment. The natural choice? This writer apparently thinks he has a line on the way god thinks. I can think of endless alternatives to knowledge of evil. The writer goes on to state how God's plan was for Adam and Eve not to be influenced by evil. So, return to the question. Why choose the knowledge of good and evil? Why not a tree that created boils (if you have to go with something that isn't 'good'), or something that took away their ability to see God, or simply damned them to separation from god rather than giving them knowledge? If god didn't want them to have knowledge or experience of evil, he didn't have to create that tree.
When speculating on why god did something, there are only two real answers: I don't know, or he doesn't exist. If you believe this story is truth, then you have no believable explanation why knowledge is something that god didn't want us to have. There just isn't one, it's a but I trust God to do what is right moment. If you don't believe in god, then the explanation is more interesting, an early parable about the dangers of progress and knowledge, especially the danger to authorities.
God's plan for Adam and Eve was to enjoy each other and their fellowship with Him without the influence of evil.
Screwed that up, didn't he.
God did not want Adam and Eve to experience evil or even know about it.
So he created a tree that would give them knowledge of it, set it down where they could get to it, told them not to touch, all the while knowing that they would, and let the snake talk them into it.
However, Satan had already rebelled against God and then tempted Eve to join him in rebellion against God. So, Adam and Eve gained knowledge of the difference between good and evil directly. The knowledge of evil brought fear and shame to Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:10).2 It was not a good thing, since it ruined their innocent relationship with God.
Believe it or not, this is how the article ends. The author has completely failed to answer the questions that were the basis for this article. He never addresses the question at all, seemingly thinking that the statement The only way to give this choice would have been to command something that was not allowed is enough to explain the whole loaded set up, and saying that it obviously had to be knowledge of good and evil, although god doesn't want anyone to know about evil. Did I miss something here?
Return to innocence?: This is somewhat speculative, but I believe that we believers will lose our knowledge of evil in heaven. Isaiah 25:83 says that God will wipe all the tears from us and our reproach will be removed (see also Revelation 7:17 and 21:4).4 We will be able to experience and enjoy God directly5 without influence or knowledge of sin and evil.
Hm.
So, if we'll be completely innocent, will we no longer have free will?
If not, why was it such a good thing to have in the first place?
And if we do have free will, will there be a way to fall from heaven?
And if not, what will be different from Adam and Eve's situation? Why did they have to have a chance to fall in order to have free will if we won't have to have the same chance in heaven?
It seems that either free will isn't all that important, if we'll lose it in heaven, or it can exist without all the pain and terror, in which case Adam, Eve, and the Fall weren't unavoidable.
Take a deep breath, step back, and look it over...
Thing is, most 'skeptics' aren't talking about free will or god's ineffable purposes when they question the knowledge of good and evil. I, at least, am talking about the anti-knowledge, anti-achievement bias that shows up in so much religious literature. Why is it knowledge that is regarded as dangerous or evil, why in this particular story does god deliberately restrict knowledge? This is the main point: that knowledge, and the ability to choose between good and evil because of our recognition and knowledge of both, is fundamental to what it means to be human. It is the basis for choice, for free will, for improvement, for learning.
Not only does this author miss this point, he actually looks forward to loss of knowledge as a good thing.
There are terrible things I wish I didn't know. But my ignorance would not make them go away, nor would it make my life better; by knowing them, I can make better choices. I want to know the truth however ugly or unwelcome. To exist in protected innocence is to be a pet, not a human being.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Istambul was Constantinople
Nov. 30th, 2006 | 08:31 am
Christian Division
Buckley Comments
If the Christian god is not a god of confusion, he's having trouble getting that through to his followers. Of course, the Bible also says he'll mess up and confuse the people he wants to, so take your pick which to believe.
Times
This article is...amazingly inept. It includes comments such as: "It is not enough to argue that Islam shows itself in extremis to be guilty of the very faults the Pope was criticising when such people die in protests committed in its name." What, no one should make any potentially explosive criticism because people might get hurt? Is he seriously claiming that anyone who speaks out is morally responsible for everyone's reactions to his words, no matter how irrational? Yes, there's a certain level of responsibility in what people say but the fact that people die in protests committed in the name of Islam is NOT a reason not to criticize Islam. Using this logic, the Beatles are responsible for the murder of Sharon Tate.
The artcile then trails off into irrelevant mumblings and a few pointless historical expositions. The point is lost in the shuffle, but I suspect that is because the journalist wants to pre-blame the Pope for anything that goes wrong in Turkey but can't quite make it sound reasonable. If the man sat back and acted like he was above the turmoil, that would be cowardly and wrong. At least he's out there attempting to practice what he preaches - peaceful dialogue.
Some of the background issues
The Turkish government seems to be paying attention to the main question: there has to be communication or there is violence. If the Catholic church gives up on trying to speak to Muslims, that isn't respect - it's abdication of the attempt to co-exist.
Maybe it's an English-speaking bias, but I don't see Muslim leaders hailing the attempt, and reaching out on their own. This is expected, from the point of view of those who value peace and rationalism more than religion, but that is secondary to religious concerns for many. It's possible that the inability of Islam to recognize other beliefs is at the root of conflict and violence, not specific doctrines. Islam is, much more than the Christian religion, an identity, something which its believers cannot separate from discourse or from their view of themselves and their lives. Speaking fruitfully to other religions is impossible without addressing the idea that its followers have a valid identity, and to do so would weaken the identity of Islam. Further, to allow supremacy to ideas outside of Islam, such as reason or co-existence, to give space to the idea that Islam has not yet and might not triumph, is a direct attack on Islam, regardless of the motivation of the speakers. I'm not sure it can be done peacefully.
On a philosophic level, is it possible to disagree with someone and not disrespect them?
On a different note:
History as Poetry
This is very close to the way I regard history, if a little vague.
Buckley Comments
If the Christian god is not a god of confusion, he's having trouble getting that through to his followers. Of course, the Bible also says he'll mess up and confuse the people he wants to, so take your pick which to believe.
Times
This article is...amazingly inept. It includes comments such as: "It is not enough to argue that Islam shows itself in extremis to be guilty of the very faults the Pope was criticising when such people die in protests committed in its name." What, no one should make any potentially explosive criticism because people might get hurt? Is he seriously claiming that anyone who speaks out is morally responsible for everyone's reactions to his words, no matter how irrational? Yes, there's a certain level of responsibility in what people say but the fact that people die in protests committed in the name of Islam is NOT a reason not to criticize Islam. Using this logic, the Beatles are responsible for the murder of Sharon Tate.
The artcile then trails off into irrelevant mumblings and a few pointless historical expositions. The point is lost in the shuffle, but I suspect that is because the journalist wants to pre-blame the Pope for anything that goes wrong in Turkey but can't quite make it sound reasonable. If the man sat back and acted like he was above the turmoil, that would be cowardly and wrong. At least he's out there attempting to practice what he preaches - peaceful dialogue.
Some of the background issues
The Turkish government seems to be paying attention to the main question: there has to be communication or there is violence. If the Catholic church gives up on trying to speak to Muslims, that isn't respect - it's abdication of the attempt to co-exist.
Maybe it's an English-speaking bias, but I don't see Muslim leaders hailing the attempt, and reaching out on their own. This is expected, from the point of view of those who value peace and rationalism more than religion, but that is secondary to religious concerns for many. It's possible that the inability of Islam to recognize other beliefs is at the root of conflict and violence, not specific doctrines. Islam is, much more than the Christian religion, an identity, something which its believers cannot separate from discourse or from their view of themselves and their lives. Speaking fruitfully to other religions is impossible without addressing the idea that its followers have a valid identity, and to do so would weaken the identity of Islam. Further, to allow supremacy to ideas outside of Islam, such as reason or co-existence, to give space to the idea that Islam has not yet and might not triumph, is a direct attack on Islam, regardless of the motivation of the speakers. I'm not sure it can be done peacefully.
On a philosophic level, is it possible to disagree with someone and not disrespect them?
On a different note:
History as Poetry
This is very close to the way I regard history, if a little vague.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Nov. 29th, 2006 | 04:21 pm
Scholars' English Translation
"You godless, brainless moron," ... Immediately following, he kills the child he's addressing for messing with his sand castle.
By Chapter 4 we have two murders of children by the five-year-old Jesus. Also, rather priceless: Joseph twists his ear in punishment, and Jesus mouths off to his earthly father.
Jesus continues to be a whiny brat. The text completely supports the divinity and eternity of Christ, and includes support for the idea that he could tell the future, but whew. Who'd want this child around?
He performs some healing miracles.
Chapter 11: he has an accident, dropping and breaking a water jar.
Apparently, this is one of the sources for the idea that Joseph was a carpenter, and not just Jesus. Also, very concentrated on Joseph's relationship with the child, nothing so far about Mary at all.
OK, finding the attempts to teach the child Jesus his alphabet completely hilarious.
Also states unequivocally that James is the brother of Jesus.
Chapter 17: Jesus continues to heal, showing more compassion and maturity now. He needed to grow up in order to stop killing people.
Chapter 19: The first familiar story, of Jesus getting lost during the Passover journey. The story and phrasing are very very close to the account in Luke. However, Luke has the interesting caveat that they 'did not understand' what was going on, or who Jesus was, which would have sounded ludicrous against the backdrop of this story.
The Qu'ran includes the story of the sparrows from this gospel.
"You godless, brainless moron," ... Immediately following, he kills the child he's addressing for messing with his sand castle.
By Chapter 4 we have two murders of children by the five-year-old Jesus. Also, rather priceless: Joseph twists his ear in punishment, and Jesus mouths off to his earthly father.
Jesus continues to be a whiny brat. The text completely supports the divinity and eternity of Christ, and includes support for the idea that he could tell the future, but whew. Who'd want this child around?
He performs some healing miracles.
Chapter 11: he has an accident, dropping and breaking a water jar.
Apparently, this is one of the sources for the idea that Joseph was a carpenter, and not just Jesus. Also, very concentrated on Joseph's relationship with the child, nothing so far about Mary at all.
OK, finding the attempts to teach the child Jesus his alphabet completely hilarious.
Also states unequivocally that James is the brother of Jesus.
Chapter 17: Jesus continues to heal, showing more compassion and maturity now. He needed to grow up in order to stop killing people.
Chapter 19: The first familiar story, of Jesus getting lost during the Passover journey. The story and phrasing are very very close to the account in Luke. However, Luke has the interesting caveat that they 'did not understand' what was going on, or who Jesus was, which would have sounded ludicrous against the backdrop of this story.
The Qu'ran includes the story of the sparrows from this gospel.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Christianity
Nov. 28th, 2006 | 01:56 pm
Christianity makes no sense at all, and its least sensible argument is the idea that you can't have morality unless there is a god. Running a close second is the idea that life has no meaning unless there is a god.
I've never seen any reason to believe in god, much less the Christian version of god. Addressing Christian morality in particular, what exactly is the Christian god's code of morals? The only response I've been able to find that is even halfway coherent is 'The Ten Commandments' - a set of rules that spend a great deal of time on dubiously moral theological stances and throw in a couple of laws with a certain universal 'd'oh!' factor. As a moral guide, much less an absolute moral guide, they are a complete waste. Follow that up with the biblical record showing that this god is apparently above his own laws and able to break them at will, and order others to break them, and they aren't very absolute. Christianity has no moral principles - it has theological principles, and a diverse moral tradition.
God is the only source of morality? Which god? What morals? Where are they codified, and who follows them? Christianity fails to answer very basic moral questions, goes contrary to several obvious moral truths, is so variable that there are thousands of denominations all following different moral paths. There is no coherent ethical or moral system, no evidence that followers of Christianity have a better moral guide, no evidence that people who are not Christians are immoral, and no evidence that being Christian helps people to be moral.
As far as meaning in life, meaning signifies that there is someone there who experiences the meaning. My meaning in life, whether I base it on 'god,' or on dedication to the betterment of humankind, or to spreading love, or to spreading peanut butter, is something that I construct for myself. No one can make meaning for me, it has to be internal.
I've run across Christians who argue that this is a limited meaning of life, and that Christianity offers ultimate meaning. I have yet to run across a definition of 'ultimate' in this sense, I suspect because there isn't one.
In what way is having some outside source to validate your life an ultimate meaning? If I raise chickens for food, they have an ultimate meaning for me, but I doubt it improves their sense of self-worth. Having a god who has a purpose for you (Christian version: to burn in hell if you don't play right) doesn't grant your life any more meaning. Another Christian argument is that my life somehow means less if it is temporary. This flies in the face of everything I know about meaning: time has nothing to do with it. A baby that lives for 2 minutes before dying does not mean less than a child of five, nor does a child of five mean less than I do because I've lived longer. Many things mean more because they are temporary. You watch your child's first steps because they will never come again. Fireworks are lovely; if they were eternal they'd just be neon. My life is what I have, what I experience, my life is now. This is meaning.
Saying that love isn't real if it isn't eternal, that my actions don't count unless there's an everlasting accounting, or that if I'm not specially remembered as the center of the universe I must be nothing is...bizarre. I'm not a god, and I'm not the center of the universe - I'm me, at this moment, doing what I can and what I love. I genuinely don't understand why people don't see that as enough. When I die I'll be gone, but everything that I am, was. Nothing changes that.
I've never seen any reason to believe in god, much less the Christian version of god. Addressing Christian morality in particular, what exactly is the Christian god's code of morals? The only response I've been able to find that is even halfway coherent is 'The Ten Commandments' - a set of rules that spend a great deal of time on dubiously moral theological stances and throw in a couple of laws with a certain universal 'd'oh!' factor. As a moral guide, much less an absolute moral guide, they are a complete waste. Follow that up with the biblical record showing that this god is apparently above his own laws and able to break them at will, and order others to break them, and they aren't very absolute. Christianity has no moral principles - it has theological principles, and a diverse moral tradition.
God is the only source of morality? Which god? What morals? Where are they codified, and who follows them? Christianity fails to answer very basic moral questions, goes contrary to several obvious moral truths, is so variable that there are thousands of denominations all following different moral paths. There is no coherent ethical or moral system, no evidence that followers of Christianity have a better moral guide, no evidence that people who are not Christians are immoral, and no evidence that being Christian helps people to be moral.
As far as meaning in life, meaning signifies that there is someone there who experiences the meaning. My meaning in life, whether I base it on 'god,' or on dedication to the betterment of humankind, or to spreading love, or to spreading peanut butter, is something that I construct for myself. No one can make meaning for me, it has to be internal.
I've run across Christians who argue that this is a limited meaning of life, and that Christianity offers ultimate meaning. I have yet to run across a definition of 'ultimate' in this sense, I suspect because there isn't one.
In what way is having some outside source to validate your life an ultimate meaning? If I raise chickens for food, they have an ultimate meaning for me, but I doubt it improves their sense of self-worth. Having a god who has a purpose for you (Christian version: to burn in hell if you don't play right) doesn't grant your life any more meaning. Another Christian argument is that my life somehow means less if it is temporary. This flies in the face of everything I know about meaning: time has nothing to do with it. A baby that lives for 2 minutes before dying does not mean less than a child of five, nor does a child of five mean less than I do because I've lived longer. Many things mean more because they are temporary. You watch your child's first steps because they will never come again. Fireworks are lovely; if they were eternal they'd just be neon. My life is what I have, what I experience, my life is now. This is meaning.
Saying that love isn't real if it isn't eternal, that my actions don't count unless there's an everlasting accounting, or that if I'm not specially remembered as the center of the universe I must be nothing is...bizarre. I'm not a god, and I'm not the center of the universe - I'm me, at this moment, doing what I can and what I love. I genuinely don't understand why people don't see that as enough. When I die I'll be gone, but everything that I am, was. Nothing changes that.