Okay, so maybe this is me getting all defensive and seeing things that aren't really there.
I've run across this same quote from C.S. Lewis a few times recently, and something about it bugs me.
"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creature with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."
I think what I'm reading in this quote is that the "meaning" being spoken of with relation to the universe is the kind of "meaning" synonymous with "purpose, intent, design". That is, the way I end up reading this quote is something like this:
"If the whole universe has no purpose, we should never have found out that is has no purpose"
If I'm wrong in this regard, then good on ya', Clive, and shame on me for being paranoid.
However, what remains to bug me about this argument is the linguistic ambiguity in the word "meaning". The word has two different, well, meanings. Or manifestations, rather. It can be either a concept in the abstract, or a singular definite thing. Put into the context of the original quote, it is essentially two different things to say:
"If the whole universe has no meaning"
"If the whole universe has no meaning in it"
The first seems to me to generally ascribe some singular "meaning" to the universe itself. The second means that the concept of meaning exists within the universe. The first says that universe has a purpose for being, while the second makes a parallel to the light analogy, and says that meaning exists within the universe, opposite of randomness and/or lack of meaning.
The universe can be full of light, without being light itself. It can be full of reason, without having a reason itself. It can be full of goodness, without being good itself. I suppose the opposite could also be true.
So I'm not really sure what Lewis was getting at with these sentences. Is he arguing the purpose of the universe itself, or the concept of meaning within the universe, such that individual things and actions may be ascribed meaning, or find meaning? Is meaning being understood as an independent or dependent idea? A created, emergent concept, or an eternal, discovered concept?
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Book of Mormon: Initial Impressions
So, I knew very little, if anything, about Mormonism. Unfortunately, after reading the Book and doing a bit of research, it appears that I still know little, if anything, about Mormonism.
In essence, what I have gathered is that judging any Mormon or most Mormon denominations today by only and completely the Book of Mormon would be akin to judging Lutheranism by reading only the Old Testament.
However, in sticking with that comparison, one conclusion that is drawn is that just as I, and probably others, are baffled and/or amused and/or disappointed that liberal Lutherans maintain even the OT as holy scripture, I am just as baffled and amused and disappointed that any Mormon could consider any speck of the Book of Mormon to be truth or divinely inspired in any way.
Poor internal logic, clear improvisation, hilarious word choice, and plain not-worthy-of-respect theology.
I was watching a lecture some time ago by a theology professor arguing for the validity and historicity of the Gospels. His argument that the books were written in or near the place where they are set, at (or around) the time that they were set is that they are so accurate. Too accurate to have been made-up by even the most devoted scholars in a another country in the next century. As an example he mentions a text written, in fact, by an individual who lived after and away from the events of Christianity's nativity, a text which attempts to establish a savior-like figure who traveled the land and performed miracle in the recent past (a counterpart to Jesus, essentially) However, the unfamiliarity of the author with the time, geography, and other such leads him to write his character as going to places and talking with people who existed far too long ago, or who have been destroyed or dead for years.
My point is that this latter example is, I think, almost exactly what we see in the Book of Mormon.
Though I'm still not sure exactly how (other the the scared plates being found in NY), Joe Smith's Mormons, or rather, people of Nephi, are a people of pre-Anglo America, having arrived these after traveling in an ark across a large body of water. And so some 90% of the book is set in North or Middle America. Joe then has numerous large cities, roads, various kinds of livestock, gems and metals, significant warfare technology (to the point of plate armor and scimitars), and large and fast-growing populations (apparently having 10 children was normal, though rarely mentioned). His characters talk to or about Christ before Christ was even supposed to have been born (and for this I like to refer to them as "Hipster Christians"), and they cite prophets who, as far as I know, never existed. And if someone could point me to where Moses supposedly prophesied about the coming fo Christ, that's be great.
Even the most basic survey of cultural and/or material archaeology in the Americas begets complete dissonance with the land Smith describes.
Of course there are a number of arguments in the other direction, attempting to show that the existence of God-blessed people in the America's is the only way to explain the internal consistency, turns of phase, and other such facets of the BoM. Interestingly, there is an argument in this direction by well-known author Orson Scott Card, which I plan to address in a more in-depth post later on.
I'll say this much: Card's argument is coming partial from an authorial perspective. As a scholar and writer of fiction, he knows something of what it's like to write a piece of fiction; the work that goes into the setting, establishing a sense of realism in a fictional setting, and how to spot hints, clues, and mannerisms that tend to slip into an author's work which betray the earthly era in which they were written and the nature of the individual writing the book. Part of his argument, then, is that in reading the BoM one comes across few, if any, indicators that book was written in the 1800's by a person such as Smith. And because of this lack of "bias", we should consider the possibility of pre-Christian American authors.
What struck me most about this is that I felt almost exactly the opposite while reading the text. Perhaps unfortunately, I do not say that from a scholarly historical or archaeological point of view. Rather, the feeling arises from a more basic, visceral part of me, which also happens to be something of a writer.
Backing up a bit; I kind of knew, before setting out how to read the book, how it was written. Something about transcription. Possibly I suspected that it was dictated. However, when I started the book, I pictured Smith writing it, so I must not have had an entirely clear idea of how it came to be. However, somewhere over halfway or more of the way through, I began to clearly imagine the text being dictated to a third party as Smith "translated" it. It could not have been more clear to me. It was as though the Book of Mormon inserted a video into my head, crystal clear, of some guy bullshitting while somebody else wrote it down. (Look up how Smith did his translating, and see if you disagree) And I daresay it was more than that. Not only could I envision the scene, the feeling was so strong that I could feel myself in Smith's shoes as the improvisation continued.
I've written fiction stories (not exactly good, mind), most set in some fictional past. I've been doing this since I was a child. Reading the Book of Mormon, seeing Smith improvise in my mind's eye, it was like watching a video of myself as an adolescent, pacing in my room, making up a fictional history. I get this uncanny feeling that, were I raised in similar context as Smith, and went about telling a religious history like the BoM is, it would come out in almost exactly the same style. The repetitive phrasing, the word choices, the manner and timing of information revelation, particular phrases used or chapter arrangement; it all reads perfectly like somebody making something up on the spot. It's not just that the setting seems fictional and the miracles magical, but the text itself reveals improvisation. And not just any kind of improvisation, but spoken improvisation. It begins to read like a transcript. Keep in mind that the supposed ancient authors were writing on plates of brass. Improved speech is very free-form; writing on something permanent and limited is deliberate and conservative. It seems to me that one does not write, sometimes on multiple occasions, "And here I was about to write more of [this-and-that], but the Lord has come to me and deemed that I write no more on this issue" (Not exact quote) or "Behold, I was about to write the names of those who were never to taste of death, but the Lord forbade; therefore I write them not, for they are hid from the world" (3 Nephi 28:25). Those are not written phrases. Those are spoken phrases, backpedaling phrases, spoken by Smith as he was thinking "Crap, I don't know what else to say...umm, I'll just say that it was really awesome and then that's all Lord let me write" or "Crap, I can't think of anymore names. I'll just say the Lord forbade me write them". Agree? Disagree? Maybe some actual texts do have phrases like that. But it seems to me an unlikely, jarring, and somewhat humorous occurrence.
In initial summation, the Book seems to me to have poor internal logic, definite improvision, hilarious word choice, and plain not-worthy-of-respect theology. More on most of those later. And, while I was reading as an atheist, let me be clear that I came to the Book without any intent to disdain. Certainly I knew I would disagree with some of the core ideas, but I was excited to learn about this religion and see what interesting secrets and stories and thoughts would be revealed through the text. I thought I would be reading a serious tome, but all I got was long periods of alternating agonizing dullness and gut-busting humor, culminating in the extreme souring of my desire to ever pick up another religious text.
In essence, what I have gathered is that judging any Mormon or most Mormon denominations today by only and completely the Book of Mormon would be akin to judging Lutheranism by reading only the Old Testament.
However, in sticking with that comparison, one conclusion that is drawn is that just as I, and probably others, are baffled and/or amused and/or disappointed that liberal Lutherans maintain even the OT as holy scripture, I am just as baffled and amused and disappointed that any Mormon could consider any speck of the Book of Mormon to be truth or divinely inspired in any way.
Poor internal logic, clear improvisation, hilarious word choice, and plain not-worthy-of-respect theology.
I was watching a lecture some time ago by a theology professor arguing for the validity and historicity of the Gospels. His argument that the books were written in or near the place where they are set, at (or around) the time that they were set is that they are so accurate. Too accurate to have been made-up by even the most devoted scholars in a another country in the next century. As an example he mentions a text written, in fact, by an individual who lived after and away from the events of Christianity's nativity, a text which attempts to establish a savior-like figure who traveled the land and performed miracle in the recent past (a counterpart to Jesus, essentially) However, the unfamiliarity of the author with the time, geography, and other such leads him to write his character as going to places and talking with people who existed far too long ago, or who have been destroyed or dead for years.
My point is that this latter example is, I think, almost exactly what we see in the Book of Mormon.
Though I'm still not sure exactly how (other the the scared plates being found in NY), Joe Smith's Mormons, or rather, people of Nephi, are a people of pre-Anglo America, having arrived these after traveling in an ark across a large body of water. And so some 90% of the book is set in North or Middle America. Joe then has numerous large cities, roads, various kinds of livestock, gems and metals, significant warfare technology (to the point of plate armor and scimitars), and large and fast-growing populations (apparently having 10 children was normal, though rarely mentioned). His characters talk to or about Christ before Christ was even supposed to have been born (and for this I like to refer to them as "Hipster Christians"), and they cite prophets who, as far as I know, never existed. And if someone could point me to where Moses supposedly prophesied about the coming fo Christ, that's be great.
Even the most basic survey of cultural and/or material archaeology in the Americas begets complete dissonance with the land Smith describes.
Of course there are a number of arguments in the other direction, attempting to show that the existence of God-blessed people in the America's is the only way to explain the internal consistency, turns of phase, and other such facets of the BoM. Interestingly, there is an argument in this direction by well-known author Orson Scott Card, which I plan to address in a more in-depth post later on.
I'll say this much: Card's argument is coming partial from an authorial perspective. As a scholar and writer of fiction, he knows something of what it's like to write a piece of fiction; the work that goes into the setting, establishing a sense of realism in a fictional setting, and how to spot hints, clues, and mannerisms that tend to slip into an author's work which betray the earthly era in which they were written and the nature of the individual writing the book. Part of his argument, then, is that in reading the BoM one comes across few, if any, indicators that book was written in the 1800's by a person such as Smith. And because of this lack of "bias", we should consider the possibility of pre-Christian American authors.
What struck me most about this is that I felt almost exactly the opposite while reading the text. Perhaps unfortunately, I do not say that from a scholarly historical or archaeological point of view. Rather, the feeling arises from a more basic, visceral part of me, which also happens to be something of a writer.
Backing up a bit; I kind of knew, before setting out how to read the book, how it was written. Something about transcription. Possibly I suspected that it was dictated. However, when I started the book, I pictured Smith writing it, so I must not have had an entirely clear idea of how it came to be. However, somewhere over halfway or more of the way through, I began to clearly imagine the text being dictated to a third party as Smith "translated" it. It could not have been more clear to me. It was as though the Book of Mormon inserted a video into my head, crystal clear, of some guy bullshitting while somebody else wrote it down. (Look up how Smith did his translating, and see if you disagree) And I daresay it was more than that. Not only could I envision the scene, the feeling was so strong that I could feel myself in Smith's shoes as the improvisation continued.
I've written fiction stories (not exactly good, mind), most set in some fictional past. I've been doing this since I was a child. Reading the Book of Mormon, seeing Smith improvise in my mind's eye, it was like watching a video of myself as an adolescent, pacing in my room, making up a fictional history. I get this uncanny feeling that, were I raised in similar context as Smith, and went about telling a religious history like the BoM is, it would come out in almost exactly the same style. The repetitive phrasing, the word choices, the manner and timing of information revelation, particular phrases used or chapter arrangement; it all reads perfectly like somebody making something up on the spot. It's not just that the setting seems fictional and the miracles magical, but the text itself reveals improvisation. And not just any kind of improvisation, but spoken improvisation. It begins to read like a transcript. Keep in mind that the supposed ancient authors were writing on plates of brass. Improved speech is very free-form; writing on something permanent and limited is deliberate and conservative. It seems to me that one does not write, sometimes on multiple occasions, "And here I was about to write more of [this-and-that], but the Lord has come to me and deemed that I write no more on this issue" (Not exact quote) or "Behold, I was about to write the names of those who were never to taste of death, but the Lord forbade; therefore I write them not, for they are hid from the world" (3 Nephi 28:25). Those are not written phrases. Those are spoken phrases, backpedaling phrases, spoken by Smith as he was thinking "Crap, I don't know what else to say...umm, I'll just say that it was really awesome and then that's all Lord let me write" or "Crap, I can't think of anymore names. I'll just say the Lord forbade me write them". Agree? Disagree? Maybe some actual texts do have phrases like that. But it seems to me an unlikely, jarring, and somewhat humorous occurrence.
In initial summation, the Book seems to me to have poor internal logic, definite improvision, hilarious word choice, and plain not-worthy-of-respect theology. More on most of those later. And, while I was reading as an atheist, let me be clear that I came to the Book without any intent to disdain. Certainly I knew I would disagree with some of the core ideas, but I was excited to learn about this religion and see what interesting secrets and stories and thoughts would be revealed through the text. I thought I would be reading a serious tome, but all I got was long periods of alternating agonizing dullness and gut-busting humor, culminating in the extreme souring of my desire to ever pick up another religious text.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Questions for Breakfast: Ground Rules, pt. 2
In which I attempt to nail down some the elusive concepts I see in religion; I am aware that these things probably vary by denomination, and maybe even by person. Any feedback on general consensus is welcome.
On origins:
One of the few earnest questions I remember receiving at the "Ask an Atheist" table was "Where do you think you come from?". It's a common enough question, and incredibly vague. Did they mean personally, or with more regard to ancestry? Were they talking more about the soul or the ego, or the body? When I asked for clarification, the response was "well, I believe God put me on this earth for such-and-such purpose..."
You often hear "God made me how I am" or"It was God who made/sustains us, let us give him thanks". But the biology of birth and the biology of living is well-understood, as far as I know. What part does god actually play in all of this? Is his involvement necessary or just for kicks? Does he only manipulate the probabilities? Is he perceived as a creative force or one of guidance?
Extending further, what is his involvement in the human species? Or, perhaps more properly, the human genus? Did homo sapiens arrive on earth fully made? Then what of erectus and neaderthalis and hablis? Perhaps a theistic evolution route? Why the trouble? I know I am only human, and yet the creation of a human "kind", only to have one survive, seems unnecessary compared to just creating that one species from the get-go.
Is god the type of god with an eternal plan; one set perfectly in motion so many eons ago, that even from the genesis he set all atoms perfectly in motion so as to realize Newton and Ghandi and Ham and Hitler at their appropriate times? Or is he more free-form, did he create the universe and then let it go its own way, popping in now and again to make sure he wasn't forgotten and nudging genetics in favor of certain individuals? Are his interventions planned or unplanned? Did he really have no other option than to flood the earth? Was the Holocaust really necessary? Or is the temptation of the devil or "its a lesson" used to explain such things?
On prayer:
What is it? I enjoy the quote "Two hands working accomplish more than a thousand clasped in prayer", but some will come back against this stating that it exhibits a misunderstanding of prayer; that prayer is not a magic trick, it is a meditative action, something which is internally refreshing and empower, thus being a form of productivity. However, does not Jesus, for example, promise that, to the faithful, whatever they ask of Lord shall be done, even be it the moving of a mountain or walking over water? I know there are likely responses to that line of though as well, likely a symbolic answer, but it seems that prayer is not intended entirely to be meditative. It can reaffirmation, praise, inquiry, or requests. Heck, the Lord's Prayer is two or three of those. The last, of course, is the most troublesome. How does it fit into "eternal plan" or "free will" or "lessons of faith"?
Is there a correct method of praying? Did not Jesus say to repeat the Lord's Prayer in the secret and solitude of your own home?
On salvation:
Good works? Faith? Is it God who damns, or do we damn ourselves? Is the concept of mercy compatible with perfect justice? What goes on in heaven, anyway? What happened before the death of Christ, with regards to salvation? What about those who have not heard the Word; the virtuous pagans?
I've slowly been making my way through the book of Mormon; it mirrors Lutheranism in that good works are a primary if not the way of getting into heaven, but good works can only come from those who first accept Christ as their savior. I thought it then got a little fuzzy insofar as to the damnation system: we can picture damnation is being there; as though Xianity is the one path and anything else is, by amoral default, the road to hell. Other times it describes Satan as coming up and claiming individuals (although this might be in a purely spiritual sense; perhaps Satan only claims them after God pours out his wrath on them); and often it describes the wrath of God coming down and striking the unbelievers, as though God is actively angry. Now, regardless of how it actually works, it is emphasis that the choice and ensuing result is all up to the individual, because that's apparently free will. So while it may be God who smites the wicked into the arms of Satan, technically, we asked for it, and so we cannot be angry with God. Now, we still get into the thorn-brush of His eternal love, as certainly he or the Son are said weep and are filled with sorrow because of the inequity of the wicked, and yet is was ordained (and probably foreseen) from the beginning that those who broke the rules would get the divine banhammer, and god cannot change his ways.
On the Bible:
Why the whole Bible? Why just the Bible?
Also, and this is something that's I've not gotten for a while, and would gladly welcome more clarification. The whole "Jesus has not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it"-- what does it mean? And, more specifically, what does it mean for the old law?
On origins:
One of the few earnest questions I remember receiving at the "Ask an Atheist" table was "Where do you think you come from?". It's a common enough question, and incredibly vague. Did they mean personally, or with more regard to ancestry? Were they talking more about the soul or the ego, or the body? When I asked for clarification, the response was "well, I believe God put me on this earth for such-and-such purpose..."
You often hear "God made me how I am" or"It was God who made/sustains us, let us give him thanks". But the biology of birth and the biology of living is well-understood, as far as I know. What part does god actually play in all of this? Is his involvement necessary or just for kicks? Does he only manipulate the probabilities? Is he perceived as a creative force or one of guidance?
Extending further, what is his involvement in the human species? Or, perhaps more properly, the human genus? Did homo sapiens arrive on earth fully made? Then what of erectus and neaderthalis and hablis? Perhaps a theistic evolution route? Why the trouble? I know I am only human, and yet the creation of a human "kind", only to have one survive, seems unnecessary compared to just creating that one species from the get-go.
Is god the type of god with an eternal plan; one set perfectly in motion so many eons ago, that even from the genesis he set all atoms perfectly in motion so as to realize Newton and Ghandi and Ham and Hitler at their appropriate times? Or is he more free-form, did he create the universe and then let it go its own way, popping in now and again to make sure he wasn't forgotten and nudging genetics in favor of certain individuals? Are his interventions planned or unplanned? Did he really have no other option than to flood the earth? Was the Holocaust really necessary? Or is the temptation of the devil or "its a lesson" used to explain such things?
On prayer:
What is it? I enjoy the quote "Two hands working accomplish more than a thousand clasped in prayer", but some will come back against this stating that it exhibits a misunderstanding of prayer; that prayer is not a magic trick, it is a meditative action, something which is internally refreshing and empower, thus being a form of productivity. However, does not Jesus, for example, promise that, to the faithful, whatever they ask of Lord shall be done, even be it the moving of a mountain or walking over water? I know there are likely responses to that line of though as well, likely a symbolic answer, but it seems that prayer is not intended entirely to be meditative. It can reaffirmation, praise, inquiry, or requests. Heck, the Lord's Prayer is two or three of those. The last, of course, is the most troublesome. How does it fit into "eternal plan" or "free will" or "lessons of faith"?
Is there a correct method of praying? Did not Jesus say to repeat the Lord's Prayer in the secret and solitude of your own home?
On salvation:
Good works? Faith? Is it God who damns, or do we damn ourselves? Is the concept of mercy compatible with perfect justice? What goes on in heaven, anyway? What happened before the death of Christ, with regards to salvation? What about those who have not heard the Word; the virtuous pagans?
I've slowly been making my way through the book of Mormon; it mirrors Lutheranism in that good works are a primary if not the way of getting into heaven, but good works can only come from those who first accept Christ as their savior. I thought it then got a little fuzzy insofar as to the damnation system: we can picture damnation is being there; as though Xianity is the one path and anything else is, by amoral default, the road to hell. Other times it describes Satan as coming up and claiming individuals (although this might be in a purely spiritual sense; perhaps Satan only claims them after God pours out his wrath on them); and often it describes the wrath of God coming down and striking the unbelievers, as though God is actively angry. Now, regardless of how it actually works, it is emphasis that the choice and ensuing result is all up to the individual, because that's apparently free will. So while it may be God who smites the wicked into the arms of Satan, technically, we asked for it, and so we cannot be angry with God. Now, we still get into the thorn-brush of His eternal love, as certainly he or the Son are said weep and are filled with sorrow because of the inequity of the wicked, and yet is was ordained (and probably foreseen) from the beginning that those who broke the rules would get the divine banhammer, and god cannot change his ways.
On the Bible:
Why the whole Bible? Why just the Bible?
Also, and this is something that's I've not gotten for a while, and would gladly welcome more clarification. The whole "Jesus has not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it"-- what does it mean? And, more specifically, what does it mean for the old law?
Saturday, December 31, 2011
The Nativity and Such
The birth of Jesus, and often his death as well, are called "miracles" and "blessings" and other such by many; it is somehow apparently wonderful and awesome in some humbling and merciful way that this entity known as Jesus Christ would be born and die for us.
I call bull.
I'm going to try and approach this issue from as many angles as I can think of; and if you've got more angles or counter-arguments leave them in the comments below.
Is it miraculous because this God would actually do so much as to gift us his Son (whatever that means); to we who are a (inherently or not) sinful, ignorant, and stubborn people?
What the fuck else was he going to do? There's like an entire book of a deity attempting or offering to bring humans into heaven or into prosperity or into power; he's flooded the world, brought plagues and destruction, spoke to outcasts and prophets and kings and laypeople, shown up as fire and pillars of wind; and yet we, by his variable criterion, continue to sin. Clearly, although he might have other godly things to be doing, he seems to show a persistence with at least increasing the population of heaven or (I dunno, what WAS the fruit of faithfulness in the OT? Some economic prosperity or not getting the flaming end of YHWH's justice?). This is somewhat to be expected, as humans are, in these stories, God's children or most "personal" creation. Sure, he's a crappy parent (kids out of control? Drown them), but he's persistent. I could make the sending of Jesus some act of desperation (comm'on, kid, get more of them humans up here; we've got like 10 and Satan has billions), but that would make God much more human-like.
While that might fit the the god of the OT, the god of pop culture Christianity is oftentimes depicted as a deity of infinite patience and kindness. Lemme repeat those words.
INFINITE patience and kindness. Everybody throws around that term a lot, but do we even know that we're saying? God, in that capacity, does not get desperate, ever. He does not tire. Repeated attempts to keep us on some sort of out-dated moral track does not become an issue of frustration or stress or burden.
Is it miraculous, not that God would do something to "save" us, but that he would do something so drastic and touching and humble? I mean, having yourself born in a stable, spending ~25 years in anonymity, and having yourself killed on a cross in order to defeat death for humankind?
Except that he wasn't really killed; not in the humans conceive of it. Being a demi-deity and "defeating" death, he spent maybe three days incapacitated, though I understand that some sources have him preaching in hell--WTF? Did he even suffer at all? Sure there was the whipping and cross-bearing and nails though the limbs, but what was the time span on all that? They even him took him down from the cross sooner than they normally would have. How does this even compare to the trials of, say, having severe and/or multiple diseases while serving an entire country as president, or being 10 years old having spent 60% of life in a hospital, or being locked in a basement for years with rape being the closest thing to social interaction during that time? Of being chained to a rock for a bird to eat your intestines every morning, as punishment for giving mankind fire? Or being taken from your home, placed in a camp with constant threat of death in experiments or acid showers, nearly starved and worked half-to-death, for years, and all for nothing--because you're Jewish, and if God is the God of Jesus, you don't get to enter the pearly gates, because you've decided or been taught that this Nazarene wasn't the Messiah.
You know what?
The story of Jesus makes much more sense if he's human the whole time; and is not the Son of God, but the Chosen of God. Ironically, the more powerful/omnipresent you make God/Jesus, perhaps with the intent of increasing the miraculous-ness with the gap between us and him, you actually make it less miraculous, because the act becomes less and less of significance or burden to God. Bringing in God only cheapens it.
Is it a miracle because he came so humbly--electing to be born of a virgin in a muddy stable with no others in attendance aside from some shepherds and livestock?
Not amazing for two reasons: One, he's tried quite a number of other tacks by this point; maybe this one would succeed where the others had failed; after all, he'd tried variations on the high and mighty theme--worked for a while, maybe, but not for long. And let's not force human expectations of pride on a divine being.
Two, what if Jesus, with his own brand of theology/philosophy, had been a king or consul or something other than a carpenter prophet? Two answers, depending on what God was intending to accomplish with Jesus, other than/beyond the defeating of death. Either something other than a carpenter prophet would have worked better, thus making God less than he seems, or the carpenter-prophet incarnation was the only way to achieve what he wanted to achieve; thus, it's not a miracle; it's the only option.
(Side-note: following the "only option" tack, it is claimed a miracle that he would die for us, but that presumes some other methods of removing the penalties of sin and death from us--AFAWK, if he cares at least enough to remove that penalty, then sending a portion of himself to die is the only way to do it. Not a miracle, just business. Besides, how is three days of "death" really a hardship on God? Three days, or even the thirty-odd years, isn't even an eyeblink in the life-span of n eternal being)
"God is so powerful; it's so wonderful that he should case about little sinful us"
"But, AFAWK, God only not created us, but has no-one else but us. I'll repeat--what the fuck else would God be doing or caring about? Furthermore, if you accept the idea that God is or can be omnipresent and omnipotent, then it doesn't even matter if he has other things to do or other people/species to care about--he can do them all AT THE SAME TIME.
Actually, why should God care about us? It's often perceived as a miracle or blessing or somesuch that even though we are stubborn and stupid, sinful, denying, hateful, etc..., God is willing to "die" for us. But isn't that only miraculous, in a sense, if God is a force of objective Good (and Law)? We fall short of his (often un-achievable) standards, and he forgives us, and so we are amazed. But who ever said that his standards were the best? Or proper? Or even good?
All these claims of miraculouness depend on God having some human-like traits--it's a miracle if he resisted the temptations of pride and vanity and wrath; if God is YHWH whose name is Jealousy, it'd be a little more miraculous; but even the OT deity has his times of siding with the humble and meek--shepherds and outcasts and such.
But especially with the pop-culture God, whose patience and love and such are infinite (INFINITE), whose very nature does not (as we depict it) include the deadly sins, then it's actually no fucking miracle at all if he resisted the things, because he's literally incapable of doing so.
Actually, and also, things seem to become even more miraculous and meaningful if we remove almost all divinity from Jesus. Think about it. The suffering and death on the cross become stronger if not only Jesus but the disciples and the reader (of the Bible) is uncertain if Jesus will in fact be able to conquer death. It makes more sense with the popular "why have you abandoned me?" line. Even John 3:16 makes more sense: A wiki search on the verse suggests that literal translation would not be "only Son" but "unique son".
If Jesus was fully human, but closest to divine/moral perfection; then chosen/blessed by God, then he would be the unique, not only, son--a human who rose above humanity. And in order to give a chance with the rest of humanity, God would allow this one near-perfect/perfect human to suffer and face Death, instead of allowing an otherwise long life to spread the teachings of goodness. Ooh, and this gets better as I think about it--back to the "why have you abandoned me?"--In order to break the bondage of death and build the bridge over sin to reconnect the divine and the mortal, God couldn't just will it to be so--a human, one perfect enough, had to be willing to die, and had to defeat Death on his own, with only the power of humanity behind him. If even one (fully) human can do this, then shows the potential within humanity as a whole for this liberation, and so the bridge is made.
Standard storybook plot, I know.
Edit: One more miracle. The famous John 3:16.
You'll find a text picture dismissing this "miracle" in my previous post, but I'll go over it here. The verse says that God gave his only (begotten) Son. But God is God. He can, and has, created multiple people and other things in the past. Why is he somehow limited to begetting only one son?
And "give" is a strong term here. It was really more a lending, don't you think? Again, Jesus was really only here for ~30 years, and was only "dead" for a few days; that's not sacrifice of any kind.
Apologies for the gruff language; I've been watching a number of heavy-handed performers and speakers in the last few weeks.
So, I know it's past, but tell me:
What is Christmas all about?
I call bull.
I'm going to try and approach this issue from as many angles as I can think of; and if you've got more angles or counter-arguments leave them in the comments below.
Is it miraculous because this God would actually do so much as to gift us his Son (whatever that means); to we who are a (inherently or not) sinful, ignorant, and stubborn people?
What the fuck else was he going to do? There's like an entire book of a deity attempting or offering to bring humans into heaven or into prosperity or into power; he's flooded the world, brought plagues and destruction, spoke to outcasts and prophets and kings and laypeople, shown up as fire and pillars of wind; and yet we, by his variable criterion, continue to sin. Clearly, although he might have other godly things to be doing, he seems to show a persistence with at least increasing the population of heaven or (I dunno, what WAS the fruit of faithfulness in the OT? Some economic prosperity or not getting the flaming end of YHWH's justice?). This is somewhat to be expected, as humans are, in these stories, God's children or most "personal" creation. Sure, he's a crappy parent (kids out of control? Drown them), but he's persistent. I could make the sending of Jesus some act of desperation (comm'on, kid, get more of them humans up here; we've got like 10 and Satan has billions), but that would make God much more human-like.
While that might fit the the god of the OT, the god of pop culture Christianity is oftentimes depicted as a deity of infinite patience and kindness. Lemme repeat those words.
INFINITE patience and kindness. Everybody throws around that term a lot, but do we even know that we're saying? God, in that capacity, does not get desperate, ever. He does not tire. Repeated attempts to keep us on some sort of out-dated moral track does not become an issue of frustration or stress or burden.
Is it miraculous, not that God would do something to "save" us, but that he would do something so drastic and touching and humble? I mean, having yourself born in a stable, spending ~25 years in anonymity, and having yourself killed on a cross in order to defeat death for humankind?
Except that he wasn't really killed; not in the humans conceive of it. Being a demi-deity and "defeating" death, he spent maybe three days incapacitated, though I understand that some sources have him preaching in hell--WTF? Did he even suffer at all? Sure there was the whipping and cross-bearing and nails though the limbs, but what was the time span on all that? They even him took him down from the cross sooner than they normally would have. How does this even compare to the trials of, say, having severe and/or multiple diseases while serving an entire country as president, or being 10 years old having spent 60% of life in a hospital, or being locked in a basement for years with rape being the closest thing to social interaction during that time? Of being chained to a rock for a bird to eat your intestines every morning, as punishment for giving mankind fire? Or being taken from your home, placed in a camp with constant threat of death in experiments or acid showers, nearly starved and worked half-to-death, for years, and all for nothing--because you're Jewish, and if God is the God of Jesus, you don't get to enter the pearly gates, because you've decided or been taught that this Nazarene wasn't the Messiah.
You know what?
The story of Jesus makes much more sense if he's human the whole time; and is not the Son of God, but the Chosen of God. Ironically, the more powerful/omnipresent you make God/Jesus, perhaps with the intent of increasing the miraculous-ness with the gap between us and him, you actually make it less miraculous, because the act becomes less and less of significance or burden to God. Bringing in God only cheapens it.
Is it a miracle because he came so humbly--electing to be born of a virgin in a muddy stable with no others in attendance aside from some shepherds and livestock?
Not amazing for two reasons: One, he's tried quite a number of other tacks by this point; maybe this one would succeed where the others had failed; after all, he'd tried variations on the high and mighty theme--worked for a while, maybe, but not for long. And let's not force human expectations of pride on a divine being.
Two, what if Jesus, with his own brand of theology/philosophy, had been a king or consul or something other than a carpenter prophet? Two answers, depending on what God was intending to accomplish with Jesus, other than/beyond the defeating of death. Either something other than a carpenter prophet would have worked better, thus making God less than he seems, or the carpenter-prophet incarnation was the only way to achieve what he wanted to achieve; thus, it's not a miracle; it's the only option.
(Side-note: following the "only option" tack, it is claimed a miracle that he would die for us, but that presumes some other methods of removing the penalties of sin and death from us--AFAWK, if he cares at least enough to remove that penalty, then sending a portion of himself to die is the only way to do it. Not a miracle, just business. Besides, how is three days of "death" really a hardship on God? Three days, or even the thirty-odd years, isn't even an eyeblink in the life-span of n eternal being)
"God is so powerful; it's so wonderful that he should case about little sinful us"
"But, AFAWK, God only not created us, but has no-one else but us. I'll repeat--what the fuck else would God be doing or caring about? Furthermore, if you accept the idea that God is or can be omnipresent and omnipotent, then it doesn't even matter if he has other things to do or other people/species to care about--he can do them all AT THE SAME TIME.
Actually, why should God care about us? It's often perceived as a miracle or blessing or somesuch that even though we are stubborn and stupid, sinful, denying, hateful, etc..., God is willing to "die" for us. But isn't that only miraculous, in a sense, if God is a force of objective Good (and Law)? We fall short of his (often un-achievable) standards, and he forgives us, and so we are amazed. But who ever said that his standards were the best? Or proper? Or even good?
All these claims of miraculouness depend on God having some human-like traits--it's a miracle if he resisted the temptations of pride and vanity and wrath; if God is YHWH whose name is Jealousy, it'd be a little more miraculous; but even the OT deity has his times of siding with the humble and meek--shepherds and outcasts and such.
But especially with the pop-culture God, whose patience and love and such are infinite (INFINITE), whose very nature does not (as we depict it) include the deadly sins, then it's actually no fucking miracle at all if he resisted the things, because he's literally incapable of doing so.
Actually, and also, things seem to become even more miraculous and meaningful if we remove almost all divinity from Jesus. Think about it. The suffering and death on the cross become stronger if not only Jesus but the disciples and the reader (of the Bible) is uncertain if Jesus will in fact be able to conquer death. It makes more sense with the popular "why have you abandoned me?" line. Even John 3:16 makes more sense: A wiki search on the verse suggests that literal translation would not be "only Son" but "unique son".
If Jesus was fully human, but closest to divine/moral perfection; then chosen/blessed by God, then he would be the unique, not only, son--a human who rose above humanity. And in order to give a chance with the rest of humanity, God would allow this one near-perfect/perfect human to suffer and face Death, instead of allowing an otherwise long life to spread the teachings of goodness. Ooh, and this gets better as I think about it--back to the "why have you abandoned me?"--In order to break the bondage of death and build the bridge over sin to reconnect the divine and the mortal, God couldn't just will it to be so--a human, one perfect enough, had to be willing to die, and had to defeat Death on his own, with only the power of humanity behind him. If even one (fully) human can do this, then shows the potential within humanity as a whole for this liberation, and so the bridge is made.
Standard storybook plot, I know.
Edit: One more miracle. The famous John 3:16.
You'll find a text picture dismissing this "miracle" in my previous post, but I'll go over it here. The verse says that God gave his only (begotten) Son. But God is God. He can, and has, created multiple people and other things in the past. Why is he somehow limited to begetting only one son?
And "give" is a strong term here. It was really more a lending, don't you think? Again, Jesus was really only here for ~30 years, and was only "dead" for a few days; that's not sacrifice of any kind.
Apologies for the gruff language; I've been watching a number of heavy-handed performers and speakers in the last few weeks.
So, I know it's past, but tell me:
What is Christmas all about?
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Intermission
Don't worry readers, I have a few posts sitting on the burning as I type; but I am also attempting to get into graduate school, and getting the applications done is taking the bulk of my free time.
So, in the meantime, pictures!
So, in the meantime, pictures!
Monday, November 7, 2011
Questions for Breakfast: Christianity, part 2
Seriously, readers, if you have anything to say, anything at all, go ahead and say it. My thoughts have only been refined in the bias of of my own mind, so I'm somewhat dubious about their integrity. There is also a hint of "Socratic" arrogance creeping in--these thoughts seems too easy and logical; surely there must be a flaw or alternate perspective or something, otherwise why are these not prevailing views?
Somehow, now that I'm out of Luther in the 'real world', I notice more often christian symbols and phrases and such. Swears in the form of "Jesus Christ", cross necklaces (some of them pretty gaudy), shirts for bible programs, etc... (I forgot so many people were religious) And yet, oftentimes I think to myself "I never would have placed that person as a christian if I hadn't seen that shirt/necklace/tattoo/whatever". Maybe part of it is the context. It would probably be hard to guess anyone's religion or philosophy if you've only seen them for a minute in line at the store. Some are impatient, some are kind, some ground their kids, others don't, some are vulgar, others aren't, some are temperamental, some hold grudges.
Other times, though, its people I've known for somewhat longer--like most anybody else they have good days and bad days, can be generous or jealous, impatient or relaxed. Then church comes up, and I think "Oh, huh. Religion hadn't even occurred to me".
And while I do not mean to say that these individuals are falling short of some basic standard of social action, maybe, in a way, that's exactly what I'm saying.
I don't expect every christian to be a paragon of righteousness/goodness/charity/whatever. But, as individuals who follow, to varying degrees, a very specific (if oftentimes "symbolic") book, I would think to see behavior that could at least indicate what it is you might be aiming for. I'm not even totally sure what this might be, since my memory of all the rules and proscriptions and whatever in the book are fuzzy with years.
In general, I suppose there's the oft-brought-up contradiction of the last(?) commandment with the very premise of capitalism and consumerism--competitive desire for what other people have.
Or working on the sabbath.
Or a married christian woman's proclamation that, though she is married, she is still allowed to look (at other guys).
Or prayer in public, or, at least, the Lord's prayer, which I guess is kinda said in private; just among other Christians.
I'm sure there's other things. Maybe all the things are those which don't really come up in a public line or across the cubicle wall. And I know terms like jealousy and impatient and such are incredibly broad. And lots of Xianity's commands might be outdated.
I guess it goes back to what I was asking in the initial Questions for Breakfast. Oftentimes Xianity seems to be less adherence to hard laws laid out in a book, and more of "exploring and developing one's own philosophy" only through a Xian context/mythology. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing; but then it seems like less a religion and more a giant book club or something.
Somehow, now that I'm out of Luther in the 'real world', I notice more often christian symbols and phrases and such. Swears in the form of "Jesus Christ", cross necklaces (some of them pretty gaudy), shirts for bible programs, etc... (I forgot so many people were religious) And yet, oftentimes I think to myself "I never would have placed that person as a christian if I hadn't seen that shirt/necklace/tattoo/whatever". Maybe part of it is the context. It would probably be hard to guess anyone's religion or philosophy if you've only seen them for a minute in line at the store. Some are impatient, some are kind, some ground their kids, others don't, some are vulgar, others aren't, some are temperamental, some hold grudges.
Other times, though, its people I've known for somewhat longer--like most anybody else they have good days and bad days, can be generous or jealous, impatient or relaxed. Then church comes up, and I think "Oh, huh. Religion hadn't even occurred to me".
And while I do not mean to say that these individuals are falling short of some basic standard of social action, maybe, in a way, that's exactly what I'm saying.
I don't expect every christian to be a paragon of righteousness/goodness/charity/whatever. But, as individuals who follow, to varying degrees, a very specific (if oftentimes "symbolic") book, I would think to see behavior that could at least indicate what it is you might be aiming for. I'm not even totally sure what this might be, since my memory of all the rules and proscriptions and whatever in the book are fuzzy with years.
In general, I suppose there's the oft-brought-up contradiction of the last(?) commandment with the very premise of capitalism and consumerism--competitive desire for what other people have.
Or working on the sabbath.
Or a married christian woman's proclamation that, though she is married, she is still allowed to look (at other guys).
Or prayer in public, or, at least, the Lord's prayer, which I guess is kinda said in private; just among other Christians.
I'm sure there's other things. Maybe all the things are those which don't really come up in a public line or across the cubicle wall. And I know terms like jealousy and impatient and such are incredibly broad. And lots of Xianity's commands might be outdated.
I guess it goes back to what I was asking in the initial Questions for Breakfast. Oftentimes Xianity seems to be less adherence to hard laws laid out in a book, and more of "exploring and developing one's own philosophy" only through a Xian context/mythology. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing; but then it seems like less a religion and more a giant book club or something.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Pondering Pokemon, pt 1
I discovered the tools for hacking Pokemon games (specifically ROMs) this last summer, and ever since I've been hankering to make my own version of Pokemon. I'd like to see how much I can realize within the limits of 8-year-old technology and the standard Pokemon game parameters.
I may be in over my head. I apparently have decided to change just about every possible aspect of the game. There are new overworld imges to make (for NPCs and building), new pokemon to design (special thanks to a friend for visuals of the new critters), new town and route maps, new building interiors new color palettes to adjust, new mythologies and storylines to create, and Holy Noodles, new scripts to write.
I have the starting town mostly done, with regards to scripts and mapping. There are still all the new interiors and overworlds to design, but I'm putting those off until later, as they are not strictly necessary for game progress (that is, I can run a beta test without them).
And along the way I may slaughter a few sacred cows. While I'm on the line about making this hack ride the zeitgeist of "make things grittier/American Kirby is hardcore", I do want the environment and the pokemon themselves to feel, for the most part, a little more dangerous. Not all of them, mind you (how can an Eevee be scary?), but it disappoints me in the games how a big deal is made in the very beginning about the dangerous of going out into the world without a pokemon by your side, and almost right away there are even individuals who aren't even trainers of any sort (at least, they're not telling) lounging about on a route, sometimes even strolling about in the tall grass.
I'm also going to change up the ways Gyms work. That's right, hold on to your hats, because:
Gyms will no longer focus on elemental type. That's right, instead each gym will have a different sort of focus.
Gyms focusing in types is an okay idea, and it even makes a little more sense in various adaptions--each gym is dedicated to bringing out the strength of certain types of pokemon and exploring the powers and combat capabilities of that type of pokemon. However, those goals are hard to express in game-form, at least in the third-gen incarnation. Each type has a limited number of moves, which by now practically every player of the games will have memorized, and a gym's challenge almost seems to come from variation, rather than adherence, on/to the theme--using a move not of a type, using a hard-to-get move, or using a pokemon with a variant type or half-type.
Because all it really comes down to in the games in type superiority. In the comics or in adaptations, it may be possible to explore methods and techniques for overcoming or adapting to type disadvantage, but in game (at least in my experience) it always come down to level and a STAB (same-type attack bonus) move.
Speaking of Gyms, I also have the crazy thought of making defeating all the gyms or getting all the badges unnecessary to "beating" the game. Since I can't unlink the usability of most of the HMs from the owning of a badge, many badges will likely still be necessary for game/story completion. Odds are that most people will challenge all the gyms anyway, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. But I'm exploring the option of multiple storylines, some of which do not involve the usual Pokemon League Challenge.
I'm also think making it so that the Gyms don't have to be challenged in a particular order, while still keeping each Gym a challenge. Yes, there are some canon games in which some gyms can be avoided, up until a certain point, so this isn't exactly new. I don't know how mutable I can make the order, though, while still retaining the level of the gym challenge and my sanity.
I may be in over my head. I apparently have decided to change just about every possible aspect of the game. There are new overworld imges to make (for NPCs and building), new pokemon to design (special thanks to a friend for visuals of the new critters), new town and route maps, new building interiors new color palettes to adjust, new mythologies and storylines to create, and Holy Noodles, new scripts to write.
I have the starting town mostly done, with regards to scripts and mapping. There are still all the new interiors and overworlds to design, but I'm putting those off until later, as they are not strictly necessary for game progress (that is, I can run a beta test without them).
And along the way I may slaughter a few sacred cows. While I'm on the line about making this hack ride the zeitgeist of "make things grittier/American Kirby is hardcore", I do want the environment and the pokemon themselves to feel, for the most part, a little more dangerous. Not all of them, mind you (how can an Eevee be scary?), but it disappoints me in the games how a big deal is made in the very beginning about the dangerous of going out into the world without a pokemon by your side, and almost right away there are even individuals who aren't even trainers of any sort (at least, they're not telling) lounging about on a route, sometimes even strolling about in the tall grass.
I'm also going to change up the ways Gyms work. That's right, hold on to your hats, because:
Gyms will no longer focus on elemental type. That's right, instead each gym will have a different sort of focus.
Gyms focusing in types is an okay idea, and it even makes a little more sense in various adaptions--each gym is dedicated to bringing out the strength of certain types of pokemon and exploring the powers and combat capabilities of that type of pokemon. However, those goals are hard to express in game-form, at least in the third-gen incarnation. Each type has a limited number of moves, which by now practically every player of the games will have memorized, and a gym's challenge almost seems to come from variation, rather than adherence, on/to the theme--using a move not of a type, using a hard-to-get move, or using a pokemon with a variant type or half-type.
Because all it really comes down to in the games in type superiority. In the comics or in adaptations, it may be possible to explore methods and techniques for overcoming or adapting to type disadvantage, but in game (at least in my experience) it always come down to level and a STAB (same-type attack bonus) move.
Speaking of Gyms, I also have the crazy thought of making defeating all the gyms or getting all the badges unnecessary to "beating" the game. Since I can't unlink the usability of most of the HMs from the owning of a badge, many badges will likely still be necessary for game/story completion. Odds are that most people will challenge all the gyms anyway, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. But I'm exploring the option of multiple storylines, some of which do not involve the usual Pokemon League Challenge.
I'm also think making it so that the Gyms don't have to be challenged in a particular order, while still keeping each Gym a challenge. Yes, there are some canon games in which some gyms can be avoided, up until a certain point, so this isn't exactly new. I don't know how mutable I can make the order, though, while still retaining the level of the gym challenge and my sanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)