What's been happening on the domestic scene has kept me glued to MSNBC, The Huffington Post, Keith Olbermann, etc. for interminable days now. I care about my country and its future. I am terrified by what I see.
This was all brought more forcefully than ever to my attention by an Alternet article I read this morning: http://www.alternet.org/story/151837/%24230%2C000_for_a_guard_dog%3A_why_the_wealthy_are_afraid_of_violence_from_below?page=entire
Republicans, and especially that insane "Tea Party" bunch of extremist, mostly religious, idiots, are hell bent on a path that can only lead to violent revolution and the destruction of everything we have built in this nation, especially since 1945.
I'm reminded of Benjamin Franklin's reply to a lady who asked what kind of government he and the other founders had given us. He replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Most republics of the past had not survived more than two or three centuries. I fear ours is destined for the trash heap, along with the rest.
You can't imitate monarchist France or czarist Russia by snotilly proclaiming, "Let them eat cake," and survive as a democracy or anything else very long. Desperate people are going to do desperate things. History proves that. But, most people have a "yawner" attitude toward history and don't study it very much. Those of us who are fascinated by the subject are terrified at what we see.
Anything progressive has been demonized as "socialism" and systematically resisted and destroyed and the common everyday American has been savaged by destructive cutbacks and preferential to the rich taxation and deregulation to the point where nothing but despair looms on the horizon.
Gone is our technological greatness and our vibrant middle class. It has been replaced by a class of the super rich riding rough shod over the masses, living in their multiple mansions in multiple exclusive and opulent areas of the world and jetting off in their private jets any time they feel the urge to have lunch in Paris or New Orleans paid for by their over twenty percent pay hikes in already obscene compensation last year alone while millions of others wonder where they'll find the money to pay the mortgage and put food on the table -- not to mention how they can fill the gas tank to look for that non-existent job that won't pay the bills if they do miraculously find one.
The "Tea Party" is nothing more than a collection of fascist minded, ignorant, "amen" shouting extremists, educated often, like Bachmann, at extreme religious schools that make the old Ambassador College look intellectual. They literally don't care that their nation is standing on the edge of an abyss that leads to nothing more than overwhelming catastrophe. Mainstream Republicans aren't much better, but some of them still have a semblance of a brain left.
Dare I still have some hope? I'd like to be optimistic. That's becoming harder and harder.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
THE ROOT OF THE TREE
There was a blog entry this morning on Banned by HWA about people being caught up in the seventh day sabbath argument and doctrine. I agree that it is a foolish argument, but not for any theological reasoning involved. As I stated in one of my aricle comments, theology and theological arguments no longer impress me and I'm loath to spend much time on them.
There is no end to theological debate. All the gods of theology, Christian and non-Christian, are fictional coneptual idols hatched in the minds of men. I've pointed that out repeatedly in several blog articles: http://www.hwarmstrong.com/god_factory.htm; http://www.hwarmstrong.com/al_dexter.htm#BORN; http://theageofreason--21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/02/its-all-about-famn-damily.html
My goal is to get back to the root and the trunk that supports the fictional tree. Chop it down and dig up the roots if you want to be truly free.
The same is true for all the fictitious gods and scriptures of Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, Mormonism or any other religious ism extant.
I'm sure I frustrate some of my fellow bloggers by constantly calling attention to the root facts that the Bible is a ridiculous fictional book about an impossible fictional god. I'm not going to waste time on their theological arguments and musings. Read my biographical book if you want to understand my approach more: http://www.hwarmstrong.com/believing-the-unbelievable.pdf
There is no end to theological debate. All the gods of theology, Christian and non-Christian, are fictional coneptual idols hatched in the minds of men. I've pointed that out repeatedly in several blog articles: http://www.hwarmstrong.com/god_factory.htm; http://www.hwarmstrong.com/al_dexter.htm#BORN; http://theageofreason--21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/02/its-all-about-famn-damily.html
My goal is to get back to the root and the trunk that supports the fictional tree. Chop it down and dig up the roots if you want to be truly free.
The same is true for all the fictitious gods and scriptures of Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, Mormonism or any other religious ism extant.
I'm sure I frustrate some of my fellow bloggers by constantly calling attention to the root facts that the Bible is a ridiculous fictional book about an impossible fictional god. I'm not going to waste time on their theological arguments and musings. Read my biographical book if you want to understand my approach more: http://www.hwarmstrong.com/believing-the-unbelievable.pdf
Saturday, May 14, 2011
HAS THE "MILK OF HUMAN KINDNESS" GONE SOUR?
I grew up in a rural North Dakota community where neighbors were really neighbors. In my early years, my family never locked their doors because they had no fear of being robbed or harmed by anyone in the community. Neighbors looked out for each other.
My grandfather told pioneer-day stories of people being saved from winter blizzards by happening upon a claim shanty abandoned for the winter and holing up there until the storm passed. It was a frontier code and nobody begrudged someone using their shelter, fuel or their food stores to preserve their lives.
Many a Sunday morning, my grandfather climbed to the hayloft and found someone burrowed in the hay, sleeping off a Saturday night hangover. Likely as not, the woozy neighbor got invited in for coffee and breakfast. No one worried about letting their children roam the prairies unsupervised all day long. The thought of anyone harming them would have been unthinkable. Children walked or rode horses to school on their own.
Things changed a bit as I was growing up. My parents took to locking their doors and padlocking their gasoline storage drum. People began to find tires stolen during the night and other thievery. The world was changing. Not for the better.
I haven't lived on those plains for more than fifty years now, but I know that, compared to many other places I've lived, they are still comparatively safe and secure. A good breed of people, for the most part, still lives there.
Today, as a member of the local Cottonwood, AZ Lions Club, I did a two-hour stint for our White Cane Day at the local Safeway, gathering in donations for our community services (sight, hearing, etc.).
During this time a clean and nicely dressed man of 75 happened by and gave a $1 donation. He revealed that he was homeless, having lost his three hundred thousand plus home when the recession hit. He lives and sleeps as best he can and a friend lets him shower, shave and do laundry at his home.
He gets a little over seven hundred dollars a month from Social Security. He used some of that to buy two tents to live in but no longer bothers.
Why?
Cities don't like to have homeless people around so the police in one of the local cities slashed his tents to ribbons with jack knives, trying to force him out of the area. He dares not try to camp anywhere in Sedona. He has been warned that he will be jailed.
A minister friend of his in Santa Monica, CA is trying to get him placed in HUD housing, and I'm hoping that will be successful. The man certainly needs it. How long HUD can continue to function is a good question.
I understand the problem cities have, but I also understand human need and human compassion. It seems to be ever more lacking in our society. While millionaires and billionaires are lavished with tax breaks and subsidies and live a life of luxury in their multiple mansions in multiple parts of the world, the down on their luck multitudes are ever more looked down on with disdain as if it is always their fault that they aren't situated comfortably. In some cases, it may be, but not most of the time. Treating them like no account animals who should simply slink off quietly and die is hardly worthy of our great nation, its traditions and its heritage.
Every time "cut" comes up in the political discussion, the first thing targeted is the already woefully inadequate provisions for those among us least capable of fending for themselves. I'm not talking about lavish handouts. I'm talking about making provision for those who absolutely cannot solve their problems without a helping hand. I've been there a few times in my own life and was very thankful that there was a caring individual who extended a hand when I needed it so desperately.
My grandfather told pioneer-day stories of people being saved from winter blizzards by happening upon a claim shanty abandoned for the winter and holing up there until the storm passed. It was a frontier code and nobody begrudged someone using their shelter, fuel or their food stores to preserve their lives.
Many a Sunday morning, my grandfather climbed to the hayloft and found someone burrowed in the hay, sleeping off a Saturday night hangover. Likely as not, the woozy neighbor got invited in for coffee and breakfast. No one worried about letting their children roam the prairies unsupervised all day long. The thought of anyone harming them would have been unthinkable. Children walked or rode horses to school on their own.
Things changed a bit as I was growing up. My parents took to locking their doors and padlocking their gasoline storage drum. People began to find tires stolen during the night and other thievery. The world was changing. Not for the better.
I haven't lived on those plains for more than fifty years now, but I know that, compared to many other places I've lived, they are still comparatively safe and secure. A good breed of people, for the most part, still lives there.
Today, as a member of the local Cottonwood, AZ Lions Club, I did a two-hour stint for our White Cane Day at the local Safeway, gathering in donations for our community services (sight, hearing, etc.).
During this time a clean and nicely dressed man of 75 happened by and gave a $1 donation. He revealed that he was homeless, having lost his three hundred thousand plus home when the recession hit. He lives and sleeps as best he can and a friend lets him shower, shave and do laundry at his home.
He gets a little over seven hundred dollars a month from Social Security. He used some of that to buy two tents to live in but no longer bothers.
Why?
Cities don't like to have homeless people around so the police in one of the local cities slashed his tents to ribbons with jack knives, trying to force him out of the area. He dares not try to camp anywhere in Sedona. He has been warned that he will be jailed.
A minister friend of his in Santa Monica, CA is trying to get him placed in HUD housing, and I'm hoping that will be successful. The man certainly needs it. How long HUD can continue to function is a good question.
I understand the problem cities have, but I also understand human need and human compassion. It seems to be ever more lacking in our society. While millionaires and billionaires are lavished with tax breaks and subsidies and live a life of luxury in their multiple mansions in multiple parts of the world, the down on their luck multitudes are ever more looked down on with disdain as if it is always their fault that they aren't situated comfortably. In some cases, it may be, but not most of the time. Treating them like no account animals who should simply slink off quietly and die is hardly worthy of our great nation, its traditions and its heritage.
Every time "cut" comes up in the political discussion, the first thing targeted is the already woefully inadequate provisions for those among us least capable of fending for themselves. I'm not talking about lavish handouts. I'm talking about making provision for those who absolutely cannot solve their problems without a helping hand. I've been there a few times in my own life and was very thankful that there was a caring individual who extended a hand when I needed it so desperately.
THE GOD FACTORY
Want a "God" that agrees with you in everything?
Just go out and find him or simply manufacture him to your own specifications.
Everybody else does. It's been going on for millenniums. As long as humans have existed in their super aware state.
If reincarnation happens to be true, perhaps I was there when some of what I am about to recount went on. However, I could have no conscious memory of it, as no USB cord comes with at least most of us to access such things, so I can only claim a limited level of accuracy in what I am about to put forward. It's all based on the history and archaeology we are aware of and observations of human proclivities and habitual thought processes.
Our distant cousins in the rest of the animal kingdom just take life as it comes. They have no real awareness of past or future. They just exist for the present in a world limited to themselves and whatever they interact with. The concept of something beyond right now and beyond this life, especially other possible dimensions, doesn't bother them because they don't have the mental capacity to grasp such concepts.
Man does.
Humans worry about the future, plan for it, know death will come at some point and have the intellectual capacity to wonder what it's all about, why things are as they are. Where did it all come from? What happens when we die? We find it hard to grasp the idea that it's all chance, that our existence might be finite, that no one is in control. It's hard to imagine not existing past this fleeting life.
It didn't take long for our ancestors to notice that they could make things with a little thought and effort. It was easy to conclude that somebody must have made them and everything around them, but WHO?
When children asked their parents, they told them some great being, or beings, must have done it and soon gave him/her and them names that differed from group to group. Sort of like the "boogie man" people invent to keep children from venturing into dangerous places and situations.
This being, or beings, also served to explain and bring order to sometimes capricious aspects of nature, like storms, lightning, earthquakes, illness versus health, plenty versus famine, etc. To explain the seemingly malevolent aspects of the natural world, they had to conclude that there were some expecially unsavory kinds of supernatural beings that became known as devils and demons.
Way back in prehistory, when our ancestors existed in roving hunter-gather bands and small tribal units, each little group had its own way of explaining what creation, life and ultimate reality was all about. The brainiest, most outgoing and most imaginative individuals came up with stories they thought explained it all. There was the usual cross-fertilization that led to similar myths and legends spreading from place to place with localized modifications being thrown in along the way. That's how things like the Bible account of creation started out in Mesopotamia and ended up in a revised form in Jewish accounts.
At first, since the female is the life-giver, most imaginary deities took on a female guise. Thus, many of the first archaeolodgical representations of imagined deities took the form of mother goddesses. These were somewhat benevolent, mothering-type imaginary beings and representations of them often appear in a pregnant state.
Political power was not a very prominent aspect of those early societies. They just tried to get by and only looked to deities for hoped for support and sustenance.
This state of affairs soon gave way to larger established villages and city states.
This was a man's bailiwick!
Men, being stronger and more aggressive, soon rose to positions of political power in these expanded societies.
Men had always, because of size and strength, taken on the natural role of protector and defender that women had to depend upon. Because of their compartive weakness and the necessity of caring for children, the ascendancy of men to this protective role was inevitable.
If a woman had one child at her breast, another on her knee and a third "in the oven," she was at a great disadvantage when smilodon (saber toothed cat) came looking for an easy banquet. She and her little munchkin's certainly filled the bill.
Many of the wily, seductive female traits we all recognize became set in the evolutionary fabric of our kind back then. Those most adept at attracting and holding some macho hunk of a man were the ones most likely to survive, along with their offspring.
Men are aggressive. They get things done. Their goal is hegemony. The most aggressive, impressive and seemingly superior indivuals became "top bananas." They set the rules for everyone to follow and organized small armies to defend against anyone and anything that posed a real or imagined threat to them and the community.
What had formerly been household gods soon morphed into community gods that they prayed to and feared to anger. Gods soon replaced goddesses at the forefront of these pantheons because a male deity would be more in keeping with the attitudes and goals of the male leaders. Shamans soon morphed into full time priests to lend better organization to religion. Settled theologies began to develop.
It wasn't long before one city state ruler decided his little territory was too confining. He wanted more territory and resources and could see the obvious advantages in getting rid of a lot of competing, warring little fiefdoms. The most aggressive and tactically superior "capo" eventually succeeded in forcefully uniting a whole bunch of little fiefdoms into one big nation. He became the "capo di tuti capi," otherwise known as a pharaoh, king, emperor, etc.
Finally, real wealth and power! That's what it was really all about.
The priests also profited. They banded together or eliminated their rivals and set up standardized religions that blended together regional differences and created one unified religion for the whole nation. Differing gods and goddesses soon filled well-defined niches and presided over set aspects of life and the afterlife. As writing entered the scene, it became easier to develop and codify standardized theologies.
The power grab drive kept on growing. Soon nations began eyeing neighboring nations and lusting for their wealth and power. Nations morphed into empires.
Religion went along for the ride. Often, the political leader was just the useful figurehead. The real power behind the scenes was the priesthood. This was certainly true of the Holy Roman Empire.
Along the way, some thoughtful individuals concluded that this great pantheon of gods and goddesses didn't add up.
Monotheism was born.
As ususal, when humans differ in opinion, conflict was the result.
One Egyptian Pharaoh became so convinced of the monotheistic concept that he tried to stamp out polytheism. This didn't sit too well with a lot of disenfranchised priests who bided their time until the demise of that Pharaoh and came charging back into power under his successor. They tried to expunge that Pharaoh's record from history.
The monotheistic philosophy caught on with a fairly large segment of the world population and led to centuries of argument and outright strife. The desire to deify outstanding individuals, even in supposedly monotheistic societies has never ended. It shows up as saints in Christianity.
It was amusing, after Elvis Presley's tragic death, to see the plethora of ecstatic reports by his idolizers that he was really still alive and they had seen him. In a prior age, he would have probably been added to the pantheon. I'm rather certain some ecstatic individuals actually talk to him, like Christians talk to saints.
In the final analysis, much remains the same as it did centuries ago. Humans are still humans, and there is no end to the mental quirks they can exhibit.
Although the gods of conquering kingdoms tended to come to ascendancy in subjugated areas, the ancients were usually rather tolerant in their attitudes toward their neighbors' deities. Even Solomon didn't demand that his foreign wives and consorts give up their ancestral gods and goddesses. Ancient Irael wasn't the strictly monotheistic society most people imagine it was.
As monotheistic concepts gained ascendancy throughout most of the western world through the power of totalitarian rulers and the military they controlled, tolerance pretty much fell by the wayside. There is no room for competing philosophies in an authoritarian monotheistic setting.
The concept of freedom in religion is a fairly new concept that had no chance until the advent of democracy and free thinking. It has never prevailed anywhere in the Middle East, except in Israel, a democracy surrounded by monarchies and dictatorships. If you would advocate religious freedom in those despotic nations, your life would be in serious jeopardy.
So, we now live in a fractured world that is in a constant state of tension and potential warfare over mental concepts put forth as ultimate truths by opposing camps that are all convinced they have the one and only revealed truth. Choices are pretty well limited in most of the world.
Here in the Americas and in Western Europe, its pretty much a "the skies the limit" situation where religious faith is concerned. New sects and denominations spring on the scene with wild abandon. So do contrary organizations defending atheism, agnosticism, deism, etc. That situation drives pople like Muslims nuts. They can't abide people being able to decide their own beliefs and opinions, especially if it's total unbelief.
As confusing as it all is, the only really acceptable situation to a truly rational thinker is the one existing in the Western world. As long as human beings seem by inborn nature to have a need to create gods as psychological adjuncts, the more freedom the better. It is easier to avoid the horrors of state sponsored, religiously backed terror. Men can think freely and science can flourish.
Without the Western approach, modern science could never have carried us to the technological heights the world now enjoys. The oppressive Muslim world would have never allowed it. Yes, they were at one time the main center of learning after the western Roman Empire disintegrated. That was primarily due to the fact that they inherited and preserved the Roman and Greek knowlege partially preserved by the Byzantine Empire they conquered.
So, if you have a psychological need for a "faith" and live in the free part of the world, I have good news for you. Just about anything that would appeal to your own concepts and psychology is already available or can be easily created by none other than YOU.
You probably won't have to go to that kind of effort. Numerous others have been very busy for centuries creating and promoting a dazzling array of differing opinions, doctrines and prejudices.
People who feel uncomfortable or guilty about sexual desire and expression will often be Catholics, even priests, monks or nuns. that doesn't mean they will be successful in shedding the drives and desires they are running from, but it does allow them to put up a "front" that looks good to those they are trying to impress. Behind the scenes, what can and often does take place is both shocking and revolting.
We're all aware of priests who don't succeed in sublimating this overwhelming drive and molest little boys and also girls. One of my ancestors left the Catholic Church when he found out a priest had taken liberties with one of his daughters. Since he lived in Minnesota at the time and not in the Bavaria he was born into, there was no societal judgment on his decision.
In the mid-1800s, along came the Seveneth Day Adventists to appeal to those who just knew Christianity had to adhere to everything the Bible contained, including Saturday sabbath. Ellen G. White's insistence on vegetarianism didn't sit too well with some people, so there was plenty of opportunity for splinter, like the Church of God Seventh Day. Out of that organization came Herbert Armstrong, Ambassador College and his Worldwide Church of god.
Herbert never denounced sex as such but got very vehement about things like necking and masturbation. In private, he himself was "jacking off" regularly and kept detailed diaries that became known as the "flog log." In his latter years, in the guise of "sex education," he would invite college students over for dinners and show lewd pornographic films that deeply embarrassed a lot of female students.
There's a psychological quirk that often leads people, especially those who are seeking to put themselves forth as some kind of special or godly example, to vehemently condemn some of the things they are secretly doing but feel deeply guilty about. They hide behind a facade and project an aura of special reghteousness and morality. I don't know what it's labeled in psychiatry, but in religious terms, it's hypocrisy.
This has created a great deal of psychological suffering for untold generations through the condemnatory teachings of many misisters and churches. Masturbation, for example, is a normal and thoroughly natural release of sexual drive and tension that members of the animal kingdom engage in all the time as a matter of instinct. Many societies openly accepted it and some of their gods were said to practice it. These malevolent and pernicious teachings debase what should be a thoroughly natural, beneficial and harmless part of private life and turn it into something evil. To cover up their private "lapses," the condemnation is magnified and the feelings of guilt with their attendant psychological damages are perpetuated. It's a vicious cycle.
Those who think only seriousness and austerity are godly and that rather trivial pursuits like card playing, dancing, etc. are an improper and sinful waste of time will turn to some sect with a "god" that shares a similar opinion. One such minister once said that dancing was wrong because a man couldn't hold a woman that closely without having sinful thoughts. To his mind, the natural sexual response to members of the opposite sex was a sin. It was lust to him, and lust was evil. Anything that might trigger it had to also be evil. Thanks to that "evil" being a part of inborn nature, you and I are here and the human race continues.
Some of the "church fathers," like Augustine, felt so guilty about their youthful debauchery that they concluded sex was evil for anything outside reproduction. Thus, we have millions of Catholics going through life feeling guilty and in constant fear of venial sin because they have thoroughly natural desires and sometimes fulfill them. Many Catholic husbands and wives sleep in separate rooms to minimize their temptation to engage in non-reproductive sex. Catholic families are often thrust into unnecessary poverty through a surplus of children because practicing birth control would result in that very "sin." The only acceptable birth control, according to Catholic doctrine, is abstinence, although they will grudgingly allow the rhythm method. Practicioners of that method are usually known as "parents" (parents with big families). "Viva Papa!"
Those who think every hour should be spent groveling before a despotic deity and using his name like a mafiosi uses the f-word will be attracted to Islam. It's clear that Mohammad had some psychological quirks and hangups. He certainly was a "control freak" and "male chauvinist pig" who wanted everyone saddled with a strict regimen of prayer and groveling. It's brainwashing, pure and simple.
Do you like money and power, what people refer to as "success?" There are plenty of gurus out there promoting that kind of "god" and ready to tell you that "greed is good." You can do it too. Just think of a unique new wrinkle or steal what someone else teaches, reword and rearrange it and make it your own. It's done every day.
You get the idea. All the great religious organizations and the families of offshoots that arose from them were set up by people or groups of people with a particular belief or concept they were convinced was the only belief or concept pleasing to "God."
If there is a human attitude or quirk some lonely or domineering person wants to find support for in a group, there usually will be something out there for them. If not, or if they just want to be the big authority and are determined enough, they can create it for themselves and usually be able to find numerous others with a similar bent to join them.
The easier mass communication becomes, the easier it is to do. Things like the worldwide web, desk top and e-book publishing and Facebook make the old methods of print, radio and television of just the recent past look like ox carts by comparison. The acquisition or manufacture will be easy. Nothing material and tangible need come into play. The idol is totally conceptual.
EARTH IS JUST ONE BIG "GOD FACTORY!"
Just go out and find him or simply manufacture him to your own specifications.
Everybody else does. It's been going on for millenniums. As long as humans have existed in their super aware state.
If reincarnation happens to be true, perhaps I was there when some of what I am about to recount went on. However, I could have no conscious memory of it, as no USB cord comes with at least most of us to access such things, so I can only claim a limited level of accuracy in what I am about to put forward. It's all based on the history and archaeology we are aware of and observations of human proclivities and habitual thought processes.
Our distant cousins in the rest of the animal kingdom just take life as it comes. They have no real awareness of past or future. They just exist for the present in a world limited to themselves and whatever they interact with. The concept of something beyond right now and beyond this life, especially other possible dimensions, doesn't bother them because they don't have the mental capacity to grasp such concepts.
Man does.
Humans worry about the future, plan for it, know death will come at some point and have the intellectual capacity to wonder what it's all about, why things are as they are. Where did it all come from? What happens when we die? We find it hard to grasp the idea that it's all chance, that our existence might be finite, that no one is in control. It's hard to imagine not existing past this fleeting life.
It didn't take long for our ancestors to notice that they could make things with a little thought and effort. It was easy to conclude that somebody must have made them and everything around them, but WHO?
When children asked their parents, they told them some great being, or beings, must have done it and soon gave him/her and them names that differed from group to group. Sort of like the "boogie man" people invent to keep children from venturing into dangerous places and situations.
This being, or beings, also served to explain and bring order to sometimes capricious aspects of nature, like storms, lightning, earthquakes, illness versus health, plenty versus famine, etc. To explain the seemingly malevolent aspects of the natural world, they had to conclude that there were some expecially unsavory kinds of supernatural beings that became known as devils and demons.
Way back in prehistory, when our ancestors existed in roving hunter-gather bands and small tribal units, each little group had its own way of explaining what creation, life and ultimate reality was all about. The brainiest, most outgoing and most imaginative individuals came up with stories they thought explained it all. There was the usual cross-fertilization that led to similar myths and legends spreading from place to place with localized modifications being thrown in along the way. That's how things like the Bible account of creation started out in Mesopotamia and ended up in a revised form in Jewish accounts.
At first, since the female is the life-giver, most imaginary deities took on a female guise. Thus, many of the first archaeolodgical representations of imagined deities took the form of mother goddesses. These were somewhat benevolent, mothering-type imaginary beings and representations of them often appear in a pregnant state.
Political power was not a very prominent aspect of those early societies. They just tried to get by and only looked to deities for hoped for support and sustenance.
This state of affairs soon gave way to larger established villages and city states.
This was a man's bailiwick!
Men, being stronger and more aggressive, soon rose to positions of political power in these expanded societies.
Men had always, because of size and strength, taken on the natural role of protector and defender that women had to depend upon. Because of their compartive weakness and the necessity of caring for children, the ascendancy of men to this protective role was inevitable.
If a woman had one child at her breast, another on her knee and a third "in the oven," she was at a great disadvantage when smilodon (saber toothed cat) came looking for an easy banquet. She and her little munchkin's certainly filled the bill.
Many of the wily, seductive female traits we all recognize became set in the evolutionary fabric of our kind back then. Those most adept at attracting and holding some macho hunk of a man were the ones most likely to survive, along with their offspring.
Men are aggressive. They get things done. Their goal is hegemony. The most aggressive, impressive and seemingly superior indivuals became "top bananas." They set the rules for everyone to follow and organized small armies to defend against anyone and anything that posed a real or imagined threat to them and the community.
What had formerly been household gods soon morphed into community gods that they prayed to and feared to anger. Gods soon replaced goddesses at the forefront of these pantheons because a male deity would be more in keeping with the attitudes and goals of the male leaders. Shamans soon morphed into full time priests to lend better organization to religion. Settled theologies began to develop.
It wasn't long before one city state ruler decided his little territory was too confining. He wanted more territory and resources and could see the obvious advantages in getting rid of a lot of competing, warring little fiefdoms. The most aggressive and tactically superior "capo" eventually succeeded in forcefully uniting a whole bunch of little fiefdoms into one big nation. He became the "capo di tuti capi," otherwise known as a pharaoh, king, emperor, etc.
Finally, real wealth and power! That's what it was really all about.
The priests also profited. They banded together or eliminated their rivals and set up standardized religions that blended together regional differences and created one unified religion for the whole nation. Differing gods and goddesses soon filled well-defined niches and presided over set aspects of life and the afterlife. As writing entered the scene, it became easier to develop and codify standardized theologies.
The power grab drive kept on growing. Soon nations began eyeing neighboring nations and lusting for their wealth and power. Nations morphed into empires.
Religion went along for the ride. Often, the political leader was just the useful figurehead. The real power behind the scenes was the priesthood. This was certainly true of the Holy Roman Empire.
Along the way, some thoughtful individuals concluded that this great pantheon of gods and goddesses didn't add up.
Monotheism was born.
As ususal, when humans differ in opinion, conflict was the result.
One Egyptian Pharaoh became so convinced of the monotheistic concept that he tried to stamp out polytheism. This didn't sit too well with a lot of disenfranchised priests who bided their time until the demise of that Pharaoh and came charging back into power under his successor. They tried to expunge that Pharaoh's record from history.
The monotheistic philosophy caught on with a fairly large segment of the world population and led to centuries of argument and outright strife. The desire to deify outstanding individuals, even in supposedly monotheistic societies has never ended. It shows up as saints in Christianity.
It was amusing, after Elvis Presley's tragic death, to see the plethora of ecstatic reports by his idolizers that he was really still alive and they had seen him. In a prior age, he would have probably been added to the pantheon. I'm rather certain some ecstatic individuals actually talk to him, like Christians talk to saints.
In the final analysis, much remains the same as it did centuries ago. Humans are still humans, and there is no end to the mental quirks they can exhibit.
Although the gods of conquering kingdoms tended to come to ascendancy in subjugated areas, the ancients were usually rather tolerant in their attitudes toward their neighbors' deities. Even Solomon didn't demand that his foreign wives and consorts give up their ancestral gods and goddesses. Ancient Irael wasn't the strictly monotheistic society most people imagine it was.
As monotheistic concepts gained ascendancy throughout most of the western world through the power of totalitarian rulers and the military they controlled, tolerance pretty much fell by the wayside. There is no room for competing philosophies in an authoritarian monotheistic setting.
The concept of freedom in religion is a fairly new concept that had no chance until the advent of democracy and free thinking. It has never prevailed anywhere in the Middle East, except in Israel, a democracy surrounded by monarchies and dictatorships. If you would advocate religious freedom in those despotic nations, your life would be in serious jeopardy.
So, we now live in a fractured world that is in a constant state of tension and potential warfare over mental concepts put forth as ultimate truths by opposing camps that are all convinced they have the one and only revealed truth. Choices are pretty well limited in most of the world.
Here in the Americas and in Western Europe, its pretty much a "the skies the limit" situation where religious faith is concerned. New sects and denominations spring on the scene with wild abandon. So do contrary organizations defending atheism, agnosticism, deism, etc. That situation drives pople like Muslims nuts. They can't abide people being able to decide their own beliefs and opinions, especially if it's total unbelief.
As confusing as it all is, the only really acceptable situation to a truly rational thinker is the one existing in the Western world. As long as human beings seem by inborn nature to have a need to create gods as psychological adjuncts, the more freedom the better. It is easier to avoid the horrors of state sponsored, religiously backed terror. Men can think freely and science can flourish.
Without the Western approach, modern science could never have carried us to the technological heights the world now enjoys. The oppressive Muslim world would have never allowed it. Yes, they were at one time the main center of learning after the western Roman Empire disintegrated. That was primarily due to the fact that they inherited and preserved the Roman and Greek knowlege partially preserved by the Byzantine Empire they conquered.
So, if you have a psychological need for a "faith" and live in the free part of the world, I have good news for you. Just about anything that would appeal to your own concepts and psychology is already available or can be easily created by none other than YOU.
You probably won't have to go to that kind of effort. Numerous others have been very busy for centuries creating and promoting a dazzling array of differing opinions, doctrines and prejudices.
People who feel uncomfortable or guilty about sexual desire and expression will often be Catholics, even priests, monks or nuns. that doesn't mean they will be successful in shedding the drives and desires they are running from, but it does allow them to put up a "front" that looks good to those they are trying to impress. Behind the scenes, what can and often does take place is both shocking and revolting.
We're all aware of priests who don't succeed in sublimating this overwhelming drive and molest little boys and also girls. One of my ancestors left the Catholic Church when he found out a priest had taken liberties with one of his daughters. Since he lived in Minnesota at the time and not in the Bavaria he was born into, there was no societal judgment on his decision.
In the mid-1800s, along came the Seveneth Day Adventists to appeal to those who just knew Christianity had to adhere to everything the Bible contained, including Saturday sabbath. Ellen G. White's insistence on vegetarianism didn't sit too well with some people, so there was plenty of opportunity for splinter, like the Church of God Seventh Day. Out of that organization came Herbert Armstrong, Ambassador College and his Worldwide Church of god.
Herbert never denounced sex as such but got very vehement about things like necking and masturbation. In private, he himself was "jacking off" regularly and kept detailed diaries that became known as the "flog log." In his latter years, in the guise of "sex education," he would invite college students over for dinners and show lewd pornographic films that deeply embarrassed a lot of female students.
There's a psychological quirk that often leads people, especially those who are seeking to put themselves forth as some kind of special or godly example, to vehemently condemn some of the things they are secretly doing but feel deeply guilty about. They hide behind a facade and project an aura of special reghteousness and morality. I don't know what it's labeled in psychiatry, but in religious terms, it's hypocrisy.
This has created a great deal of psychological suffering for untold generations through the condemnatory teachings of many misisters and churches. Masturbation, for example, is a normal and thoroughly natural release of sexual drive and tension that members of the animal kingdom engage in all the time as a matter of instinct. Many societies openly accepted it and some of their gods were said to practice it. These malevolent and pernicious teachings debase what should be a thoroughly natural, beneficial and harmless part of private life and turn it into something evil. To cover up their private "lapses," the condemnation is magnified and the feelings of guilt with their attendant psychological damages are perpetuated. It's a vicious cycle.
Those who think only seriousness and austerity are godly and that rather trivial pursuits like card playing, dancing, etc. are an improper and sinful waste of time will turn to some sect with a "god" that shares a similar opinion. One such minister once said that dancing was wrong because a man couldn't hold a woman that closely without having sinful thoughts. To his mind, the natural sexual response to members of the opposite sex was a sin. It was lust to him, and lust was evil. Anything that might trigger it had to also be evil. Thanks to that "evil" being a part of inborn nature, you and I are here and the human race continues.
Some of the "church fathers," like Augustine, felt so guilty about their youthful debauchery that they concluded sex was evil for anything outside reproduction. Thus, we have millions of Catholics going through life feeling guilty and in constant fear of venial sin because they have thoroughly natural desires and sometimes fulfill them. Many Catholic husbands and wives sleep in separate rooms to minimize their temptation to engage in non-reproductive sex. Catholic families are often thrust into unnecessary poverty through a surplus of children because practicing birth control would result in that very "sin." The only acceptable birth control, according to Catholic doctrine, is abstinence, although they will grudgingly allow the rhythm method. Practicioners of that method are usually known as "parents" (parents with big families). "Viva Papa!"
Those who think every hour should be spent groveling before a despotic deity and using his name like a mafiosi uses the f-word will be attracted to Islam. It's clear that Mohammad had some psychological quirks and hangups. He certainly was a "control freak" and "male chauvinist pig" who wanted everyone saddled with a strict regimen of prayer and groveling. It's brainwashing, pure and simple.
Do you like money and power, what people refer to as "success?" There are plenty of gurus out there promoting that kind of "god" and ready to tell you that "greed is good." You can do it too. Just think of a unique new wrinkle or steal what someone else teaches, reword and rearrange it and make it your own. It's done every day.
You get the idea. All the great religious organizations and the families of offshoots that arose from them were set up by people or groups of people with a particular belief or concept they were convinced was the only belief or concept pleasing to "God."
If there is a human attitude or quirk some lonely or domineering person wants to find support for in a group, there usually will be something out there for them. If not, or if they just want to be the big authority and are determined enough, they can create it for themselves and usually be able to find numerous others with a similar bent to join them.
The easier mass communication becomes, the easier it is to do. Things like the worldwide web, desk top and e-book publishing and Facebook make the old methods of print, radio and television of just the recent past look like ox carts by comparison. The acquisition or manufacture will be easy. Nothing material and tangible need come into play. The idol is totally conceptual.
EARTH IS JUST ONE BIG "GOD FACTORY!"
Sunday, April 10, 2011
OUR NEW DICKENSIAN WORLD
It's April 10, 2011. I talked to my son, Gene, this morning. He's in the same occupation that supported both of us so well for so long. He's a carpet technician who had to move from Prescott, Arizona to Houston over two years ago just to have any work at all, after losing his home and 401K. (He's 48. So much for his retirement security!) He had to go to work for an installation company that services Home Depot.
He was hired for wages less than what we charged customers when we worked together 15 and 20 years ago. (You know what inflation has done since then!) He told me that his compensation has been cut again and that the $40 trip charge he was getting for long distances has been cut to $15. I don't know what is being put on his table for meals – I'm afraid to ask. Retirement? That's a joke!
Yea, for capitalism. You're seeing the glories of a “trickle-down” economy. The cliches we all bought are now the buzzards coming home to roost. Capitalism and uncontrolled free enterprise are running their predictable course. There's an article on Huffington Post this morning about soaring executive pay and record corporate profits: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/business/10comp.html?_r=2&ref=business
Every destructive weapon imaginable is being zeroed in on the middle and laboring classes. Unions are being savaged and destroyed. Every legal safeguard that protected people from unfairness is being attacked and obliterated. Regulation is demonized. We are becoming a carbon copy of the society that existed in Dickensian England and Czarist Russia, as well as in the age of the American “robber barons.” We seem determined to return to poor houses, company stores and pestilence ridden slums where the common people are expendable fodder for corporate machines.
As far as I can see, the “American dream” has become the “American nightmare.” It certainly is for my son and his family. It's even worse for many others.
We still have it pretty good. My wife and I both have Social Security coming in and my wife gets a moderate state retirement check every month. I do a few small carpet service jobs and an occasional wedding ceremony, and we manage to survive. Don't count on that being the case for my son or anyone else of his generation, if the aristocrats of today have their way. They have the famous “Let them eat cake” snotty attitude (think Boehner here).
Socialism is almost universally badmouthed in this country, and most of the badmouthers don't have a clue what they are talking about. Their ignorance is appalling.
Total socialism has never worked. The fate of Communist Russia vouches for that fact.
What people don't realize is that total capitalism is just as bad, or worse than, total socialism. Both lead to a super rich ruling class that lords it over everyone else. Communism was really just state run capitalism dreamed up by Stalin, not by Lenin. Both, in their ultimate form, lead to feudalism. You see it every time you enter one of these giant corporate run franchises. Over the whole thing sits the corporate “Lords” raking off enormous profits from the “vassals” in the local operations supervising armies of clone-like “serfs” running around in their dopey little uniforms, lucky to be paid “minimum wage.”
I'm not dumb enough to believe that all that has happened has happened by accident. It's been carefully planned by the faceless super wealthy overlords who have been working tirelessly behind the scenes ever since they engineered the election of “trickle down” Reagan with his “voodoo economics,” the haughty elitist who wouldn't think of “demeaning” his office by taking off his coat and getting down to business in his exalted oval office. He was a great “acting” president. He was guided, like the clueless puppet he was, into giving us the original savings and loan crisis. That was just step one in the steady parade of maneuvers that have never ceased and have brought one society changing (and destroying) crisis after another, all intended to accomplish the same goal.
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to figure out what the real goal is.
SLAVERY! A FEUDAL, AND LIKELY THEOCRATIC, AMERICA!
Nothing, absolutely nothing, controls a population as well as a theocracy.
Wake up, my fellow Americans! Quit being led around by the nose and swallowing every stupid story you are fed!
Saturday, April 9, 2011
MORE ON AMAZING ANIMALS
To go along with my recent post about dogs, I want to refer readers to this recent article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/09/lucky-paws-blind-dog_n_846938.html.
This story of a seeing-eye companion to another dog warmed my heart. It also points out the almost human-like responses animals often show. The more I see and read about the subject, the more I realize that we humans, though certainly special, aren't all that unique. If you read the account, you'll probably agree.
This story of a seeing-eye companion to another dog warmed my heart. It also points out the almost human-like responses animals often show. The more I see and read about the subject, the more I realize that we humans, though certainly special, aren't all that unique. If you read the account, you'll probably agree.
Friday, April 1, 2011
THE ARROGANCE OF HUMAN ASCENDANCY
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
