"Eastman; he came from the east to do battle with the Amazing Rando!"
- MST3K The Movie
* * *
"Go west, young man, when the evil go east."
- Michael W. Smith
* * *
In Rob Bell's book, Jesus Wants to Save Christians, he posits this idea that a common expression for moving away from God is this idea of heading east. Adam and Eve head east after being expelled from the garden of Eden and Cain wonders east after murdering his brother.
So, if this meme is true, I think it's interesting that later on in scripture Wise Men From the East come to pay homage to the Christ Child. Perhaps this more than simply a kingly narrative indicator on the writer's part. Perhaps it's also a thematic expression that with the advent of Christ's birth, everyone can begin heading back toward God. We can head west. We can move from where we were (east, away from God) and turn back to Him again.
I doubt that this is the writer's intended position, but it's sort of cool nonetheless and so I'm sticking with it for today. Besides, how often can I quote Mystery Science Theater 3000, Michael W. Smith, and Rob Bell all in one post?
Not often... Not often...
Dear Congress,
Please stop giving us money you don't have.
When rich parents throw money in their children's direction, it's their prerogative. If they have money to give and if they want to use it to bail out their children's misfortunes- we applaud them for putting family first and taking care of their own. My own parents and my in-laws have both given a lot to my family. Their generosity is amazing and we are grateful that they have carved out some funds from the surplus of their own wealth and used it to help their children (thanks mom & dad, thanks Rick & Pam).
But Congress, while it might be tempting to believe that you are wealthy parents harboring your children's best interest- but you are not.
Please remember that you are part of the US government, not part of a family. And you don't have any money, either. You may think that you do since every year you get to make a budget, but the truth is, you have spent SO much over the past hundred years that you don't have any left. In fact, you have actually become the biggest debtors the world has ever known. You have negative funds. Trillions of negative funds.
So please don't pretend any longer that you can simply hand out money to the rest of us when things get tough. If you insist on seeing yourself as a family man, then consider yourself a father, drowning in debt, who is trying to take out another loan so that his daughter can go to Prom.
Listen: Screw Prom!
No one really looks back at Prom and thinks- wow, that was the best night of my life! It's hard for your daughter to hear, but she's going to have to give up Prom this year, or go out and get a job and save up some money so she can pay her own way rather than rely on your irresponsibility to get her there.
Anyhow, maybe it would be better for you to take care of your own financial mess instead of trying to take care of everyone else's problems. Once you're back on top, debt free (or at least less debt encumbered), perhaps you can start giving money away out of the kindness of your heart. But as it stands, you're only making things worse. In the short term, there might be a few more trinkets in the pockets of your citizens- but the inflation that's coming when the world realizes that you have destroyed the dollar...
Well, let's just say that I'm not really sure how you're going to fix that mess when you can't even figure out how to fix this one.
Kindest Regards,Nathan Key
Please watch the following video clip before reading my post:
Imagine for a moment that you were to introduced to Monty Python's comedy through the video clip above.
"Seriously," A friend tells you, "you'll love them! Just look at the historical impact this team has made on modern comedy writers!"
After watching, you may very well be intrigued as to why all these comedic minds are so enamored with Monty Python, but I'm not sure that you'd be laughing. Because let's face it, this short documentary isn't very funny.
In fact, this video, although a nice commentary on the influence that Monty Python has had in the art of other comedy writers/directors, isn't a good way to experience comedy- it's an example of how to kill comedy. In stark contrast to the actual Monty Python Troupe, who made a name for themselves bordering on the absurd and lampooning everything under the sun, this video's rational, reasonable, and thoughtful approach to comedy removes all traces of what made Flying Circus, Holy Grail, The Life of Brian funny to begin with. It makes Monty Python serious business and reduces their legacy to one of influence and impact rather than laughter.
The only way to truly enjoy and savor Monty Python is through the means of actually watching their work. You simply can't get a taste of what they're all about by discussing them or watching a documentary about the historical impact they've had. So, before going any further in this post, let's all take a moment to enjoy one of my own personal favorite scenes:
The Stoning, from Life of Brian
Ah yes, this is why we love Monty Python. It's not because a bunch of guys like Trey Parker and Jamie Fallon tell us that they are great and meaningful, but rather, it's because they are indeed a very funny bunch who are able to see the lighter side of the darkest moments. Nothing is sacred. Everything and everyone contains a laughable moment that's just waiting to catch us unawares.
* * *
So, this morning when I watched the video, it immediately made me consider whether or not we do this with religion, too.
Honestly, if feels like we may be killing religion in the same way these guys have killed Monty Python.
I just have to wonder if maybe the reason people aren't more intrigued with God is because our conversations, sermons, and books are all about God rather than little windows that reflect who He actually is. We've chosen to create these intellectual/historical/philosophical reductions of the impact He's made on the world (or in our own lives) instead of inviting other people to really see and savor Him.
OK, maybe it's just that I've seen too many "Case for Christ" and "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" memes and not enough people who are simply living in the way of Jesus and inviting others to see Him. But maybe not. Maybe we are doing it?
I'd encourage you to give a lot of thought to this. Think about most of the conversations, sermons, discussions, books, and videos you've ever seen about Christianity (other religious beliefs fit into this dilemma too, I'm sure). Have most of them been mere conjecture about God or are they little images of Him that allow you to experience Him fully?
For my part (and this blog is no exception), I've held a lot of intellectually viable conversations regarding Religion and Christianity, but I haven't done a whole lot of pointing people toward viable ways of seeing and savoring God.
It's probably time to change that.
* * *
Questions for Consideration:
1. What are some other well-intended ways to "kill" religion besides reducing it to a meme?
2. Have you spent more time seeing and savoring God, or more time intellectualizing Him and reducing His historical significance?
3. What are some ways to really see God rather than simply knowing some useful facts about Him?
Almost anyone who watches LOST probably realizes that Dualism has been the main theme of the television series. In an early scene in the Pilot, John Locke sits on the beach with Walter and holds high the black and white backgammon pieces, indicating that it is the oldest game in the world- a symbolic nod to the battle between good and evil. Since then, the writers have given us plenty of good and evil to go around.
The trouble is, it's never coming from where you'd expect.
In the first few episodes of the show, the roles were pretty clear. There were fairly solid distinctions between good and evil- the survivors of were cast as heroes while the smoke monster, the polar bears, and the Others were the villains.
But as the show continued, each character was further revealed through flashbacks and we began to see that each and every one of them were flawed. Every member of the cast was a in their own miniature battle between good and evil, right and wrong. So much so, that I began teasing my friends that if they didn't like how a character was portrayed, they should just wait two episodes because the characters they were frustrated with would surely be a drug addicts, saints, lairs, or leaders once again.
What keeps me coming back is that the dualism within the characters on LOST is a beautiful image that reflects the state of the world today. In the real world, it's no longer clear who the "good guys" and who the "bad guys" are. For example, we used to assume that everything the United States did was for the good of the world- but it turns out that we've got a lot of skeletons in our closet. Sometimes, we may even want what's worst for other countries.
And I see the same in my own life. Sometimes, I'm a wonderful husband and father. But there are other times when I'm a horrid wreck of a man- ruthless and arrogant. I'm not always the good guy and I'm not always the villain either. As my life continues, it seems that I'm engaged in a fight between these two- just like Paul, who wrote that he was conflicted between what he wanted to do- and what his flesh did on its own.
Of course, this hint of realism is an element that a lot viewers simply can't handle. A lot of the viewers are abandoning the show completely because they're tired of the endless twists and turns. They'd prefer their good guys to be good and their bad guys bad. They don't like how good and evil aren't always constant.
And even worse, they probably hate thinking that within them, too, are really nasty secrets and really surprising beauty. The reminder that things aren't as easy as we'd like them to be isn't easy to face.
PROLOGUE
My sister-in-law found an article about vaccines the other day and posted it on Facebook. If you're into controversy, it's a great read- especially considering the rebuttal from Robert Sears and other Pediatricians.
Here's the synopsis of the article in case you don't want to read through the whole thing: Dr. Robert Sears' publication 'The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child' is dangerous because in its attempt to present balanced information to parents about vaccines, more and more parents are requesting alternative Vaccine Schedules rather than the one recommended by the CDC. The result is that more and more children aren't protected against diseases that could harm them.
Here's the synopsis of Dr. Sears' response: The aim of Sears' book is to inform parents about vaccines by presenting both sides of the argument. Sears is actually Pro-vaccine and intends to persuade parents who might opt out of vaccines altogether to consider a Vaccine Schedule that isn't quite as scary as the one recommended by the CDC. If they decide to go with the slower rate instead of opting out completely, this would actually leads to greater vaccination rates, since more children would be getting vaccinated even if it's at a slightly slower rate than the recommended schedule.
* * *
MY OWN BIAS
Before I get too much further into this post, it's probably important that you know my own bias; we currently have our son Ethan on an alternative schedule- not because of Dr. Sears- but because he had a really bad reaction to his first set of vaccines and we felt that it would be better for him to receive two shots per visit rather than four. This is a different reason than most parents who opt out of vaccines or try a different schedule. Most of them are concerned about autism or heavy metal poisoning.
* * *
WHAT'S AT STAKE
When it comes to Vaccines, there are a lot of ethical dilemmas involved, (which is why this topic fits into my blog on philosophy, politics, and religion).
First, there's an issue of who gets to decide what's best for a baby. Does he get to decide, his parents, or the state? Obviously, a baby isn't in a position to make good decisions about issues that could have life and death consequences, so the issue really comes down to mom & dad versus the government.
Who is the best equipped to decide what's right for a child?
Should we allow a child's parents to decide? They surely have a vested interest in their own child's survival! On the other hand, the also lack the knowledge and understanding surrounding disease and prevention that our government has.
Should we allow the government to decide? They, of course, are looking out for the entire population- not simply one child. They mandate vaccines for the sake of the health of the entire population. On the other hand, we all know that our government is swayed by lobbying groups who throw their money into the laps of Senators and Representatives. Some of these lobbyists are companies who research and produce vaccines and since there is money to be made when parents vaccinate and money to be lost when they opt out, we can't entirely trust that either the government or vaccine manufacturers are a completely objective when it comes to how well these drugs work and whether or not they should be required for all children. It's rather naive to assume that simply because these researchers have put a lot of time and effort into testing these drugs that they aren't simply seeing dollar bill signs when a new baby is born.
* * *
QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Some parents opt out of vaccines because they believe that vaccines may cause damage to their child- are they still "child abusers" as some doctors proclaim?
2. Should parents with concerns over the recommended Vaccine Schedule be allowed to participate in alternative schedules that still provide the same vaccines to their children?
3. Ultimately who is best fit to decide what's right for a child- parents, or the government?
4. Should parents forgo the right to decide what's best for their own child since the decision to not to vaccinate could potentially effect other children as well (if their child gets sick).
Last year, during his bid for the Presidency, Congressman Paul clearly warned us that the current economic mess we're in was just on the horizon. He told us that our economic policy would fail and that we'd be paying the price for engaging in so much debt. From what I've seen in the video below, it looks like Fred Thompson is borrowing from the Ron Paul playbook.
This video would have been a whole lot funnier to me if Thompson and the other Republican candidates during the election cycle hadn't spent the entire primary mocking Congressman Paul's insightful theories and policies on financial responsibility. But instead of truly thinking through the issues of monetary policy, they laughed him off and continued their rhetoric about the war in Iraq and the safety of Americans in an age of terrorism.
These days, no one really talks about terrorism because as it turns out, it's not the only threat to our health and safety. Our current economic state has the news and Congress so caught up in matters of monetary policy and the Federal Reserve System that everything else seems pretty tame in comparison.
Unfortunately, since Thompson and the others don't have quite the handle that Paul does on economic matters, we're only going to see this kind of thing from them when they speak about it. They won't give us any really useful hints on what we can do to fix it- just a tongue and cheek deconstruction of the policies that are already in place.
Makes me wish we could have a "do-over" in Primary Season. Even if Paul didn't make it to the White House, perhaps his perspective would have been adopted a lot earlier instead of mocked.
It's an old meme by now, but I finally got around to watching Hotel Rwanda over the weekend. As a result of seeing this film, I found myself questioning the doctrine of non-interventionism that I hold to so dearly.
I lean libertarian, of course, and as such it's important to remind you that libertarians view interventionism as one of the worst evils that a nation can perpetuate. Getting entangled in the affairs of another nation was strictly forbidden by the Founding Fathers and libertarians adhere to a strict interpretation of their intentions and the Constitution. This means that we rarely find that it's a good idea to command or coerce another nation according to our own desires.
At the same time, however, there is a strict libertarian cause to protect the life, liberty, and property of all citizens. And indeed, this cause should probably be enacted toward all persons regardless of national status. For if we hold that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," we cannot in good conscience restrict those rights only to those living within the borders of our own country.
So, when another country perpetuates acts of genocide, our belief in the right to LIFE conflicts with the belief that we should not intervene with another country's right to govern. What to do, what to do?
In cases such as genocide, I'm beginning to be swayed toward the argument that that LIFE wins no matter what. For we cannot maintain the rights of liberty and property if we fail to protect life in the first place.
But, I'm still thinking about it... after all, this could be used to rationalize the invasion of any number of countries in the world- simply because they aren't protecting their citizens the way we would.
Yesterday I said that the writer of Genesis was probably trying to redeem the story of Cronos/Zeus-
But as Keith Milsark pointed out, the Exodus Story was about 300 years prior to the Greek culture that produced the Cronos/Zeus mythology (Exodus was around 1200 BC and the Greeks were creating Zeus worship around 900 BC).
A better reconciliation would be that both stories have the same root. The Noah/Ham story and the Cronos/Zeus story are possibly from the same stock of tales that burst out of Mesopotamia. It's just that as one tribe headed toward Crete where they would eventually give birth to the Greek myths, while the other stayed around Canaan and eventually ended up in Egypt, birthing the Exodus of Israel and an encounter with God on Mt. Sinai which served as a catalyst for Moses' account.
Introduction:
My wife got me the most wonderful present for Christmas this year; a copy of Robert Alter's Five Books of Moses which I've been simply devouring. Alter's translation is pretty decent, but it's the translation notes that I'm really interested in. The main focus of this book is not only the scripture itself, but rather Alter's explanation of the nuance in the Hebrew language and the anthropological background of the text. Since I have no interest in actually learning ancient Hebrew, this is the next best thing- a scholar who's willing to share his insight.
* * *
The other day, I came across something brilliant in Alter's Five Books of Moses. Over the course of Beginnings (or Genesis as we call it in English) Alter points out that in many parts of the text the author is trying to reconcile polytheistic myths and legends with the monotheism of the Jewish Heritage. Because many of the stories in Genesis seem to be laden with poetic inference to other ancient texts, it's concluded by Alter and other historians that the original author was writing these origin stories with the understanding that his readers were familiar with the other legends and origin stories of the gods.
Thus, Genesis is a sort of a reimagining and retelling of those tales. The difference is that with this telling, the author is giving a more accurate representation of the truth. It's sort of like when Jesus says to His disciples in the New Testament- "You have heard it said ________ but I say to you ________." In other words, you've heard these stories and proverbs a certain way for all these years, but I'm going to tell you what the real story is and what it really means.
One of these stories is possibly the retelling of the Cronos/Zeus myth.
According to the story, after Cronos the Sky God usurps his father's throne by castrating him, he became certain that one of his offspring would dethrone him as well and usurp his place as Father of the Gods. He was so sure this would happen, that each time his wife gave birth, he would swallow his children whole seconds after they were born, thereby retaining his throne and his rule as god. But Cronos' wife tricked him and when Zeus was being born she replaced Zeus' infant body with a rock dressed in swaddling clothes. Later, when Zeus had grown, he poisoned his father Cronos, causing him to throw up all the children he had eaten. Then Zeus castrates Cronos, physically ending his reign as Father King, and thus the prophecy his father had predicted came true. Zeus replaces his father Cronos as Sky God and Father of the Gods and the story ends.
* * *
And this brings us to Noah.
It's possibly that to the Hebrew author, Noah was the second father of all mankind- sort of like Cronos. Noah is the second father in the sense that after escaping The Great Flood by building an ark, his seed alone would be used to repopulate the planet in the same way that Adam's seed was used to populate the planet at the beginning of the story.
So after The Great Flood story ends, establishing Noah as second father of all mankind, he proceeds to plant a vineyard and then gets drunk one day from the wine of his labor (one might correspond this wine with the poison from Cronos' story). While he is recovering in his tent, his son Ham walks in on him, "sees his nakedness," and runs off to tell his brothers about it. His brothers respond by tenderly recovering their father, but when Noah awakes and realizes what had happened, he curses Ham and Ham's son Canaan for all generations to come.
Alter speculates that there is a bit more to this story than what is written because it seems rather odd that a father would awake from a drunken stupor and respond in such anger to a fuzzy recollection that one of his sons had seen him naked. It just doesn't seem rational that Noah would be so enraged by his nudity that he would curse his son because of it.
But what if the Hebrew writer knows that his audience will understand the Cronos / Zeus story and fill in the blanks, understanding that Ham must have done something rather cruel to his father within the chambers of the tent. Some Rabbi's are certain that the author of Genesis intended for us to understand that some act of violence occurred.
Two acts are possible: Castration, or Sexual Penetration.
Castration because of the inference to the Cronos/Zeus mythology, and sexual penetration because the phrase "see the nakedness" meant something a little deeper than literally seeing nakedness. This is apparent because later on in Genesis, Joseph uses the same phrase to accuse his brothers when they come to Egypt to buy food during a famine. He tells them that they have come to "see the nakedness" of the land, in other words they are looking for weaknesses in order to come with violent force and overthrow the Egyptians. Castration and penetration seem to fit into the category of Ham overcoming his father with violent force, but since the taboo against homosexuality was so strong in the ancient world, it seems that since the author omits the details, he was probably using a tactful ephamism for rape.
Another reason that this penetration explanation makes sense is that Genesis was probably recorded from community stories (and God's inspiration, of course) during the 40 year exile of Israel in the Desert of Sinai. With the Hebrews about to enter Canaanite territory and practically commit ethnic genocide- hearing that the Canaanites were from the lineage of Ham the Father Rapist probably made it a little easier on the Israeli conscience when it came time to burn cities to the ground and kill everyone residing in them.
But regardless of whether Ham was the perpetrator of castration or sexual penetration- the rage that Noah feels toward his son seems a bit more justified in either case. A wakeful Noah would have physical reminders of either encounter rather than merely a drunken memory of someone coming in and then leaving after seeing him in the nude. And so the curse of Ham and Ham's son Canaan make much more sense in this context.
Thus, just as the story of Zeus and Cronos came to an end, so Noah's story ends as well; with Noah's son Ham cast as the villan for all time and his other two sons established as the blessed ones of God.
Today, I watched President Barack Obama take his oath of office whilst eating lunch with some old colleagues from Universal Orlando. After Obama finished his speech one of them turned to us and said, "I just hope that at the very least, this moment will mark the end of the negative thinking that's been on everyone's mind lately. Maybe that's enough to move us into a better place." We all nodded in agreement and I began thinking about how great it would be if the market turned and optimism spread.
You see, the former President George W. Bush, for all his faults and successes, represents eight years of terrorist attacks, war, economic collapse, and the end of Habeas Corpus. So no matter if your man won the election- no matter whether you voted for Obama, McCain, or a third party- today marks the end of that cycle and the beginning of something new. Perhaps today is the moment when we can finally put 9/11, the war in Iraq, the economic slump, and the other crap that's happened over the past eight years behind us. Perhaps today is the day that we can begin to move on.
Christians have a word for this sot of thing: Repentance.
Repentance is one of those religious words with all sorts of theological underpinnings attached to it, but in it's purest form it simply means 'to turn.' When we turn from an activity or thought process toward something new, better, or different, we repent. Often, in religious texts, repentance leads to some form of salvation. Sometimes, like Job, salvation meant a restitution of wealth and prosperity. Sometimes, like the city of Nineveh, it meant being spared punishment. And other times, it meant some sort of existential promise of full, meaningful life and the reward of heaven at the end. Regardless, repentance was always a good thing that lead to something better.
So, whether or not I agree with President Barack Obama's decisions (and I'll probably disagree with many of them), I think that this turning will be good for our country. I think it's a chance to grasp hold of something new and better. It's a chance to change.
I like that.
|