At the ripe old age of 13 I was being driven to confirmation class every Wednesday night at my parents Presbyterian church. I was not terribly excited at the prospect. I would rather have been causing havoc with my friends, or playing guitar, listening to music, or even sneaking cigarettes. In the face of all these other options I was going to confirmation class. If I remember correctly, the class was from 7 to 8 o'clock.
During the class, as the pastor (who I actually did like and respect) would be explaining things we needed to know, I would ask questions. I had done a dangerous thing by this point in my life, I had read the Bible. There were things that Mr. Edwards had gotten confused, and I have never been one to believe that this was not a big deal. What should be more important than what we believe in regarding God? All other things come second, and look at that, God left us this nifty manual full of stories and rules. Well, it still is my credo, RTFM. When asking questions, or opening a debate on what something meant, or what did or did not make sense about what we were 'learning', I am sure that I appeared to be a snarky 13 year old. You know, the kind of kid who actually cared about this stuff.
"Yea, have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?" (Matthew 21: 16)
Anyway, one night early in the year I was either at class early or waiting for my ride at the end, and Mr. Edwards pulled me aside and asked why I came to confirmation class. I told him that my mother was forcing me against my will. I told him that I respected him, but that I just saw too many inconsistencies, and that I wasn't finding much truth at church. He said that he understood, and asked me if I had explained that to my mom, and I responded that I had. It had no effect, because I was to do as told. He said that he thought my discussions were disruptive, and I'm sure they were. This was not a theological debate class, this was a confirmation class, though I have never been convinced that they are not one in the same. I said to him that I understood, and even felt bad, but that I couldn't simply sit there and agree with things that I didn't. He asked me if I had a solution. I said yes.
I will stop coming, and you will neglect to mention my absence.
I swear to God it worked. Every week from then on I was dropped off on time, or even early, and dutifully walked through the church (so as to appear that I had gone inside) to the front door and out towards the pool hall 3 doors down. This arrangement lasted quite a long time, a few months at least. until I think it was a scheduling mix up that finally got me caught with my mom.
It was the end of the year and she was wondering why I was not being confirmed. I wasn't.
I knew exactly why.
See, the purpose that I was sent to church with was to learn to obey. Not to obey God.
To obey authority.
I rejected then and I reject now blind adherence to authority.
I did not want to go to the class, as I already knew that I didn't find anything real in our church, but I was supposed to submit to the will of my mother.
There were things in that class that I disagreed with, but I was supposed to submit to the pastoral authority.
I was supposed to silence my beliefs and not interfere with my classmates 'learning'.
I was supposed to rote learn empty ritual and submit to the social constraints of the congregation.
I was supposed to learn to submit.
I was not supposed to find or worship God.
I knew exactly why.
**********************************************************************************
Here's some questions I never got an answer to.
What happens to those who lived before Jesus? Do they go to Hell? Purgatory? Some other construct of Dante's literary theft of heretical texts?
What about those who lived after Jesus, but never heard of him? Need they suffer eternally because they were kept ignorant by lack of technology?
Who are the people of Nod?
Why does the Bible never have a problem with slavery?
Why does Jesus consistently refer to his being the Son of Man?
Why did God choose one small stone age people to reveal his truth to? Why did he give them a Holy Land, only to let everyone else and their brother take it away from them?
Why did God think everyone else inferior?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Singularities, Dualities, Attributes
Hello.
We use language to create communication. In order to have communication, you need common language. This allows us to accept that some sounds mean this, while others mean that. Humans have done pretty well with languages. They are abundant.
Terms we use to describe sound, such as loud, soft, shrill, fast, slow etc., are all terms describing segments of the overall sound. No one description embodies the sound completely. We are limited to describing attributes of the sound. Our other option is to attempt recreation.
In our attempt to describe the sound we find that attributes have values. A sound that is loud is loud compared to other sounds. If we find that sound to be loud then we mean that it is loud compared to more sounds than would make it seem not loud by comparison. More industry specific terms are applied with more advanced study. Tone, timbre, frequency, harmonic qualities etc.
What we find are that we have series of properties with two possible trajectories. These properties either increase in value or decrease in value. Our system of comparative property description does not allow for properties to not exist, they would simply diminish in value beyond all other comparable attributes. This system of an increase or decrease of energy is dualism.
The realization that these properties are simply labels humanity concocted leads us to the oneness of the object (sound) with itself. It is defined truly only by what it is. Its very existence is its explanation. This is the singularity.
What is left after the singularity is simply an energy pulsation, on a trajectory that will either increase or decrease its energy.
We use language to create communication. In order to have communication, you need common language. This allows us to accept that some sounds mean this, while others mean that. Humans have done pretty well with languages. They are abundant.
Terms we use to describe sound, such as loud, soft, shrill, fast, slow etc., are all terms describing segments of the overall sound. No one description embodies the sound completely. We are limited to describing attributes of the sound. Our other option is to attempt recreation.
In our attempt to describe the sound we find that attributes have values. A sound that is loud is loud compared to other sounds. If we find that sound to be loud then we mean that it is loud compared to more sounds than would make it seem not loud by comparison. More industry specific terms are applied with more advanced study. Tone, timbre, frequency, harmonic qualities etc.
What we find are that we have series of properties with two possible trajectories. These properties either increase in value or decrease in value. Our system of comparative property description does not allow for properties to not exist, they would simply diminish in value beyond all other comparable attributes. This system of an increase or decrease of energy is dualism.
The realization that these properties are simply labels humanity concocted leads us to the oneness of the object (sound) with itself. It is defined truly only by what it is. Its very existence is its explanation. This is the singularity.
What is left after the singularity is simply an energy pulsation, on a trajectory that will either increase or decrease its energy.
What if we're wrong?
A quick snippet from the new Bill Maher commercial. He and a Jesus looking fellow ask each other "what if you're wrong?".
It's a shame neither answered.
Ask the atheist
What if you're wrong?
If I'm wrong then I will gladly stand before God or any other existing entity who would judge me. I would say that I have lived a good life, based on what I logically and rationally understood a good life to mean.
I would state that I did not always know right from wrong, but always tried to do right.
I would state that I made mistakes, tried to learn from them, and gained wisdom.
I would state that I was inspired to do right without fear from punishment for doing wrong.
I would state that the spirit of love was what drove me to do good.
I would state that the desire for wisdom and compassion drove me to not accept without thinking what authority had told me, when I could clearly see the oppression of that authority.
I would state that no person warranted a lack of compassion, no matter their sin.
I would state that humility had led me to not raise a golden calf in place of a God that might exist, and that any faith in what human authority claimed was an affront to the possible God's authority.
Now we ask the Christian
What if you're wrong?
I would state into the void that I tried to live a good life based on what I was told.
I would state that I did not always know right from wrong, but always tried to do right.
I tried to live a good life, but fell short hoping for eventual forgiveness.
I would state that I made mistakes, tried to learn from them, and gained wisdom.
I would state that the spirit of love was what drove me to do good.
I believed authority's claims and wanted to take a positive place within society.
I unfairly judged people due to doctrines built upon the fears and prejudices of authorities.
I was unable to live a rational life due to rationalism's conflicts with my faith.
I would state that fear led me to submit to authority.
So, what if we're wrong?
It's a shame neither answered.
Ask the atheist
What if you're wrong?
If I'm wrong then I will gladly stand before God or any other existing entity who would judge me. I would say that I have lived a good life, based on what I logically and rationally understood a good life to mean.
I would state that I did not always know right from wrong, but always tried to do right.
I would state that I made mistakes, tried to learn from them, and gained wisdom.
I would state that I was inspired to do right without fear from punishment for doing wrong.
I would state that the spirit of love was what drove me to do good.
I would state that the desire for wisdom and compassion drove me to not accept without thinking what authority had told me, when I could clearly see the oppression of that authority.
I would state that no person warranted a lack of compassion, no matter their sin.
I would state that humility had led me to not raise a golden calf in place of a God that might exist, and that any faith in what human authority claimed was an affront to the possible God's authority.
Now we ask the Christian
What if you're wrong?
I would state into the void that I tried to live a good life based on what I was told.
I would state that I did not always know right from wrong, but always tried to do right.
I tried to live a good life, but fell short hoping for eventual forgiveness.
I would state that I made mistakes, tried to learn from them, and gained wisdom.
I would state that the spirit of love was what drove me to do good.
I believed authority's claims and wanted to take a positive place within society.
I unfairly judged people due to doctrines built upon the fears and prejudices of authorities.
I was unable to live a rational life due to rationalism's conflicts with my faith.
I would state that fear led me to submit to authority.
So, what if we're wrong?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
hmm
can't believe that the title sophist's choice was snagged already, but mine at least will be philosophical in nature.
No Harrison Ford reviews here.
No Harrison Ford reviews here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)