To Believe Or Not To Believe - That Is My Question

"Now the mind is a very peculiar instrument in that once it picks up an idea from any source, from the worst possible source, once a mind picks up an idea, it tends to become possessive over it. It tends to say, 'Ah, this is my idea.' Then it goes to the next stage and says, 'This is not only my idea, but my life depends upon following it, believing it, protecting it.' And regardless of how nonsensical, how self-destructive these ideas may be, human beings will fiercely protect them thinking - listen to this please - thinking that they are protecting their own life when all it is is picking up a collection of ideas that have made them what they are today."
--Vernon Mowisdom

What is it about a belief (especially a religious belief) that causes people to be unable to have a rational unemotional discussion about the validity of that belief? The normal reaction to any attempt to confront a strong ingrained belief, even those based upon nothing other than pure repetition (or those acquired without any independent thought) is to reject any alternative idea without much (if any) consideration. “No, no, I don’t want to hear it” or “what I believe is true and that’s final”, are the boiler plate responses often given. Alternatively, some people offer up their beliefs like dirty laundry. Suddenly they’re shaving their heads in some cult drinking Kool-Aid. The reason I believe each of these phenomenon’s occur is basically the same. In the first instance your biological programming tells you instinctively to defend your position (if you are so genetically inclined). You can not accept rational thought as your pack mentality programming clicks on and tells you to reject any other position and defend yours ("must reject and defend"). In the second instance, your submissive program (as that may be alternatively dominant in your genetic make up) tells you you must follow this new exposed point of view. To be able to overcome these programs and offer your open mind is difficult to varying degrees based upon your current situation (did your granmother just die?), your genetic make-up (random really), your age, your experiences (or environmnet) and your intelligence. For instnace, the younger you are the more easily you are influenced - you are often a blank slate without a belief one way or the other. Similarly, the less intelligence you have the easier you are influenced. So basically a belief operates like a kind of virus - seeking out the weak, moving from the dominant in the world to the submissive in the world. When it encounters and experiences a grounded intelligent person who can control his animal tendency to either be dominant or submissive, it get’s a real examination under a microscope and dissected toward a rational acceptance or rejection.
How does one then (if they have an alternative position with some substance) approach the average (instinctual) religionist or agnostic or atheist in order that they may listen to a new rational and meaningful position with an open mind? And then how does the necessary approach lead to a belief change on a global scale? My best guess is that the place to acquire some belief changing skills is to look at the past where these changes have actually occurred. And the first question that needs to be asked is “how did belief systems change historically such that they became ingrained on a large scale?” It seems once a belief catches one (even minimally) it can gain momentum and spread. We teach our beliefs to our children (who like clay take most belief systems at face value no matter what they are told). As a result they become further intrenched without the requirement of any further examination or thought. Essentially a changing belief system on a global scale is like a small snow ball running down a mountain. If you can create that small snow ball belief and roll it down that mountain, it might gain momentum as it is further presented to children and other people by the people they look up to and/or trust (professors, clergy, holy men, your parents as some examples). Since the examples of large or global changes in people’s belief systems are numerous, I’ll make this an on-going blog - revisiting it with new examples and maybe some new insight. Believe it or not I’ll start with examples of the historical past and work my way up all the way to the modern-day belief molding experts (Rush Limbaugh comes to mind). Stay tuned.

Patrick Kennedy's Historical Drive In To A Barricade

I was watching the history of the Roman Empire on (of course) the History Channel yesterday. And it basically was the story of one dysfunctional or corrupt or tyrannical Emperor after the other (and the power hungry women who loved them) and I got to thinking - why do we expect so much from our modern day politicians? Clearly the Roman emperors had (in a joint sense) every bad quality a person put in power could ever have - they often womanized, the often killed (some killed a lot), and they often took advantage. In short, they mostly just took advantage of their positions of power. They got the six-on-the-side-lovers, the special in-palace-running-water, and the right to exercise their natural and dominant tendencies to be in charge (I learned that Emperor Claudius had no such tendancies - he hid behind a curtain after Emperor Gaius was killed by his own guards and was then literally forced to be the new Emperor).
So here we are in this modern “civilized” society (my kids have a Sony Play Station) and we expect so much from our representatives. We demand their integrity and honesty. And we’re so outraged when they get caught playing Emperor. But why? On the basis of what? Has man’s morality really evolved all that much since the Roman Empire? Wasn’t it just a handful of decades ago that a guy maned Hitler tried to forcibly and violently take over the world? So our guys (and I live in America but your guys in other so called civilized nations should easily follow the paradigm) are suddenly going to change from historical trends and not only really CARE about the people, but care enough to focus on the people’s needs and not their own? What a joke. When politicians get caught taking bribes, smoking pot, killing someone (how many people do you know personally who die under mysterious circumstances?) or shacking up with their sixteen year old intern, it’s nothing but the HISTORICAL NORM. They’re just following suit. It’s only by the sheer fact that they’re no longer held above the law that they don’t OPENLY engage in the Roamesq things of the past. In fact when they do get caught they seen to find ways to use their positions to get out of trouble anyway. I wonder what would happen if a guy named Rocco Fabricchi the plumber from Brooklyn ran his beat up Toyota in to his neighbor’s fence and then said, “Oops I took some sleeping pills and don’t remember a thing.” What about if you ran your car off a bridge with your brother’s former secretary in side and left her to die? You do nothing for nine hours and they charge you with nothing but “leaving the scene of an accident”? Would they just charge you and me with “leaving the scene of an accident”? Or would you get at least a vehicular or negligent homicide charge? Well you get the picture. The new age politicians are doing just like the Roman Emperors - they’re just doing it quietly in the background with a nice custom made suit. We need o learn from human history and stop expecting so much.

Where Is My God Warning Before I Screw Up?

One might ask why we should not expect god to be at least as reasonable and compassionate as the average person? Take a simple scenario that was given to me on a yahoo group: You are in the kitchen. You see a toddler headed towards a stove where a pot of oil bubbles away furiously. He reaches up... do you sit there and watch him do grievous harm to himself when he pulls it down, thinking pain, fear, scarring or death are just rewards for wanting to know? Or do you get up and pull him to safety? This is a good one. Where’s god;s warning when people are nearing unknown but certain danger? Here are my ideas: First, it is possible that the value system that is placed on this equation is meaningless in relation to some HIGHER PURPOSE? Perhaps the history of death and pain and suffering is a spit in the pan compared to what the ultimate goal is? Does a mother focus on the pain of child birth when she first holds her infant in her arms? Or is she elated with the result such that the pain becomes meaningless? Chaos, pain and suffering are inherent propensities in this system, but in the evolution of biology toward man they were certainly necessary components of the equation. Unlike the animal, whose pain is a conditioned response mechanism, man (now conscious) has an understanding of these things. He understands pain, suffering, mortality. Now he must suffer the consequences of that knowledge. But given the loftier goal of creating new personalities, perhaps the awareness of the chaotic nature of our environment and the pain and suffering and death we know in our conscious states is well worth attainment of another goal? In other words, maybe the means justify the end. Quite possibly not even the intervention by God would change the final outcomes. Secondly, this scenario assumes god can intervene. I believe god is just another word for perfection or morality and that saying that god could grab the infant or give him some warning is the same as saying your morality could grab the infant and save him. You (being moral or godly) want to save him because you have god (morality) within you.

Christianity is Just a Remake

The story of Christianity has been around for thousands of years and is just a retold story of what was known by ancient peoples - with a nice twist. How far back does it go - probably the Sumerians. If we look at the Egyptians they told the same story. In the Egyptian story of creation, Seth is the god of confusion, and represents chaos and disorder, the constant and eternal challenge to the order of creation. Seth (or Set) is shown with an animal's head with a long curved pointed snout, slanting eyes, and square-tipped ears to exemplify animal biology which sprang from chaos. As the story goes, Seth made a beautiful box, namely biological man, which like a "coffin" is made to the exact measurements of Osiris, which is in fact representative of man's soul ("I am Yesterday, "and I am Today ; and I have the power to be born a second time. I the hidden Soul create the gods, and I give sepulchral meals to "the divine beings in Amenti and in heaven." - Osiris as described in the Rubric to one of the versions of the lxivth Chapter of the Theban Recension of the Book of the Dead). However, Isis saves man's soul (Osiris). The name Isis means 'Knowledge'. And like in the story of Adam and Eve, this knowledge is represented by a snake like creature, here Isis creates the first cobra and uses it's venomous bite to coerce Ra (Or God) into revealing consciousness to man (in Egyptian lore to coerce Ra to reveal his "secret name"). What this really means is that at some level of intelligence consciousness arose. Early Christian equated Isis to the Virgin Mary as she, like Isis, is symbolic of nothing more than wisdom which led to knowledge which in turn led to consciousness, or the symbolic birth of Christ (the equivalent of Osiris, or man's soul). Christ (or your soul) is created through a virginal process (there was no mother and father just a mother - knowledge) whereby man obtains the feminine knowledge (Isis is also known as the "Immaculate Lady," "Queen of Heaven," "Illustrious Isis, most powerful, merciful and just," titles transferred entire or with slight change to the Virgin-Mary. This same symbolic representation is found in a host of other stories and in those she is called Ishtar, Astarte, Venus, Diana, Aurora, Aphrodite, etc.) . As a side bar, the Egyptian god Horus (a winged falcon which carries a red disk, also represented by the Eye of Horus. See as a biblical example "The Sun of Righteousness has healing in His wings. Mal. 4:2.) symbolizes your souls flight in life - or the point of it's origin in consciousness. An Egyptian tablet describes him as the "substance of his father," of whom he is an incarnation and identical with him (sound biblically familiar?) As I stated earlier Horus (consciousness) was said to be born on 25 December, while Osiris (your soul or Christ) was born of the virgin Isis (also known as Mata-Meri or Mother Mary) on 6 January - 12 days later ("a bright cloud overshadowed them, and twelve rays as of the sun broke forth from behind the clouds, and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well pleased. Listen to Him" - Mormon Gospel of the Holy Twelve). In some cultures, especially Hispanic and Latin American culture, January 6th is observed as Three Kings Day, or simply the Day of the Kings. How about the 12 days of Christmas - the twelfth day (January 6) being when the "wise men" (get it) show up? Not surprisingly the word "Christ" means sun-savior. Jesus is from Hebrew "Yeshua," savior, and Christ may be traced to the Chaldean "chris" = sun [Greek: christened]. Also, the physical Church was founded by Constantine, and that it was a part of his decree "that the venerable day of the Sun should be the day for the worship of Jesus Christ as Sun-day" (his quote). FYI, here's what the Egyptians had to say about following religious traditions as it applied to your soul (Horus in flight): "Learn with the eye of discernment where you wish to travel to! Do not be guided by some teacher, some book, some tradition. Your soul's flight is too important to be dominated by another's guidance, however noble. Your only true guide is yourself, that spark of which you inherit like Myself from the Divine Body of Nuit, Mother of All. My Golden Eye is within your own self. It is the eye of truth" - Oracle of Horus the Golden Eye

Pavlov's Dogs and Cell Phone Usage

THE PROBLEM WITH CELL PHONES is that they are invasive. There was a story about a Wise Man who was in his living room with a Young Boy. There came a knock on the door and the Wise Man sat without moving. The Young Boy asked, "aren't you going to answer the door"? To which the Wise Man replied, "If I answered the door every time I heard a knock I would be as simple as Pavlov's dogs. And fortunately I am the ruler of my choices". This of course got me thinking about my cell phone. Every time the thing rang I would pick it up. I could be in the middle of eating and I stopped to pick it up the phone. Like a mindless robot. So I stopped answering it all together - I let everyone leave a message and I call them back AT MY CONVENIENCE. And of course everyone (and I mean everyone) complains about how they can never get in touch with me. WELL FOR ALL OF YOU COMPLAINERS HERE ARE MY CELL PHONE RULES:
(A) if you call me private or your name doesn't come up on the little blue screen - I'm definitely not picking up your damn call - when I answer the door I ask "who it is" - I'm certainly not opening it if there's a sign there that says "PRIVATE" - as for all of you privacy nuts that are afraid if your number or name comes up on someone else's phone the CIA may get a hold of it and drag you off to their SECRET DETENTION CENTER in New Mexico - this is the price you must pay. Leave me a message and I might call you back;
(B) To the other 48 people a day whose names actually come up on the little blue thing - if I don't pick it up one of four things is happening (1) I don't want to talk to you (and you probably know why) (2) I am in the bathroom - you know this cell phone things ain't water proof - and I never carry it in there - why would I? Do you want to hear me urinating in the background? No? Well I don't want to hear your ideas while I'm lathering up either (3) the battery is dead - stop calling so much and we can eliminate this problem (4) I'm sleeping - sometimes I even sleep during the early afternoon.
Just remember: I'm no dog - I'll call you back when I get a chance (or when I feel like it).

Did God Want Terrorist Al-Zarqawi Dead?

SO MANY BAD THINGS ARE HAPPENING lately I thought it would be a good way to start my Blog with a little (light) discussion about a god who could cause or permit suffering and death and destruction of innocent people. And answer the question of whether or not god is a loving god? Where is god while people and natural disasters are causing suffering (through acts like terrorist bombings)? Do terrorists deserve to die in acts of revenge? Does god want us to kill our enemies? Taking my moral short-comings aside I did a little research and hope you'll entertain my thoughts:
Man’s penchant is usually to give "god" human qualities. The focus is primarily on some divine power with white hair and human emotion- because this is what people have been shown god is through the "hot iron of tradition" (1 Tim. 4:2). Atheists are no better at releasing their prejudices of what god may or may not be in this regard than would be a fundamentalist. To give god human qualities and define god as "angry" and "revengenful" seems to be the norm. That's why I think the word god is a poor choice to begin a discussion. It's a bad start to any debate. So let's define god as morality - or simply as "the love within us". In this way we vitiate the image of god as some man-power that would neglect a child, or watch a person suffer in agony. This love within is (often) devoid in many people - these are the animals, these are the destructive individuals without some compassion for the rest of us. I believe the capcity for good and evil is within us all and you find proof of good every time you guide a helpless old lady to safety across a crowded intersection, give a homeless person a meal, or even stop to pet a dog. And so the world is often an imperfect place wrought with evil and devoid of justice for good people who suffer at the hands of that evil . However, these atrocities are not the result of some actions by god (or even zeus). The bible indicates that the injustice of it all shall be set straight at some later time:
"If God be just, there will be a day of judgment. Now things are out of course; sin is rampant, saints are wronged, they are often cast in a righteous cause, they can meet with no justice here, justice is turned into wormwood; but there is a day coming, when God will set things right; he will do every man justice; he will crown the righteous and condemn the wicked. 'He hath appointed a day..." (Acts 17:31).
If (notice the word "if" in sentence one") that's the case than seeking justice here and now may be inconsequential. And there's some potential pay day for being good.
Does that mean we should permit our enemies to harm and injure (and even kill) us here and now without response? Well, in the bible we also find the story of David. The King of Israel, King Saul, "sought him every day" despite the fact that he had spent years heading the Israelite army fighting for Saul. The King motivated by his jealously of David's status as hero alone wanted to kill him. While David hid in the hills, Saul controlled his wife, his children, his best friend Jonathan, his property and his "name." In the king's court. David's name slid quickly from conquering hero to mud. YET when presented with an opportunity to kill Saul, and against all human nature, David chooses mercy instead of justice:
"David's heart smote him," for what he had done to Saul (I Samuel 24:5). "The Lord forbid that I should … stretch forth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord."
What does this mean? Is justice as important as morality and doing what is right? Are even the worst of us "anointed" with god (good) inside? Again, the focus with many people is on what the rest of the world is doing - the focus needs to be on the good that we see in people - the good that people become. The choice between justice and vengeance or correctness in moral choices is a better focus than the evil in the world - but then I suppose that’s just my opinion. I know we want justice but what we really need is an (almost impossible to understand) ability to forgive and to help our enemies. This is, of course, what made David great - his uniqueness and seperation from an otherwise natural animal response. Maybe this is sorely lacking in our society?