Coming home

Life can be hectic. My wife's blog, Navigating Hectivity, is a great catalog of all the things we have to deal with as adults.

Work, school, chores and projects at home can be, in combination, quite a challenge. Sometimes, quite overwhelming.

As such, we hadn't, for some years, had the chance or ability to skip out for a weekend alone together.

Tight finances and busy schedules sometimes preclude romantic getaways.

We do our best, from time to time, to use our room or screened in porch as refuges from business, just to reconnect a little.

But, both of us longed for a bit more, knowing it was very unlikely to happen any time soon.

When we received a long awaited invitation to our niece's destination wedding, things worked out that it would be the two of us who got to go.

When future exciting events are on my calendar, I just put my head down and focus on the current activities. I try to not get so excited, because it distracts me and makes me anxious.

But, as time does go on, it was time to begin packing and readying the house for our departure.

Short of a weekend trip to visit my brother for his birthday, late last year and our usual summer family reunion, I hadn't been out of state very much in a few years.

Travel is always stressful for me.

But we departed and after a long day, found ourselves nestled high in the Rockies.

We soon found that it was an agreeable place. And even more, found out how lovely it was to be together, just the two of us.

Yes, we did mingle with family and make new friends and that was wonderful. But the time we spent together was magical.

We took long walks, ate wonderful food, rested and read quietly, or watched cable TV (a reality that reassured us our choice to cancel cable was the right one) and just hung out.

The wedding events, like the pre wedding cookout and the rehearsal dinner and the wedding and reception were beautiful and fun and wonderful.

They were, after all, our reason for going.

But still, we managed to reconnect, find our romance and friendship still intact, and enjoy some much needed time as just a couple in love.

Our journey home was long and exhausting. We got back early enough to inject a little normalcy into the evening: crashing on the couch and watching our favorite crime drama on Netflix (with no commercials or channel flipping necessary) and snuggling with our furry family members.

But now, the new week looms large. Checklists replace plane tickets and wedding events. Deadlines replace departure and landing times.

Chores and projects put on hold for the weekend away, are now once again in focus.

Autumn is here and it is time to begin to focus on the coming winter months.

We are once again parents and adult children. We take up again the mantles of CEO, Grounds keeper, CFO, Teen Librarian and Web Facilitator.

Morning routines replace snuggling and watching dawn break in the high places and adventuring for a place to eat breakfast.

We will both miss our proximity to our beloved nieces and their wonderful, beautiful personalities. We will miss our new friends and family.

We will greatly miss the beauty of life at high altitude (if not the shortness of breath or the potency of adult beverages up there) and the quaking aspens and lodgepole pines and the black beaked magpies.

We will never forget our time there, reconnecting, falling in love again, bonding, and experiencing the glorious beauty of a new love and newly spoken vows.

Now it's time to get back to our regularly scheduled programming. Time to catch up on laundry and laundry lists at home and at work.

Life is good. Routine is good. There is a distinct earthy pleasure to be had in the mundane everyday things.

But behind the scenes, are two people who feel renewed, refreshed and reconnected.

As the jet lag and the oxygen content normalize and return to normal, it is good to know that we both came home knowing that we are much stronger, more deeply in love and closer in so many wonderful ways.

The war for truth

I am becoming famous, or perhaps infamous, for using Snopes.com and other factual sources to determine whether content shared on Social Media is factual or spurious.
With quotes, especially, I tend to hunt up citations that meet my standards.
Quotes that do turn out to be accurate never see more from me than a like or a here, here. Quotes that do not turn out to be accurate, on the other hand, often get a link in the comments.
I know that this seems trollish. Especially when, like in a very recent case, it was a harmless sentiment that was actually honorable in its foundational ideas.
Why should I presume to correct a misquote shared by a friend, when there is no apparent harm done?
Because we are in a silent war with an ideology that uses all kinds of misquotes and misinformation to sway a whole lot of people into believing things that are patently not true.
And while I support everyone's right to follow their own way, it goes hard with me when someone that I respect falls into that same whirlpool.
If we are going to change this world, we have to do it by being as verifiable as possible. Those who don't want to see the truth, never will see it. But we all have a responsibility to make sure that what we read, share and put out there for the rest of the world to read is factual and sourced.
I know of no one who wants to be willingly mislead. If we are, that is the worst state of affairs.
So, I become a well meaning troll. I try to make sure that, regardless of whether the sentiment is noble, the source is accurate, too.
I mean no offense. I only mean to keep us all on the footing of truth and honor.
That said, please cite your sources, double check before you share. In a moment of weakness we could be responsible for leading someone down a path to dangerous ideas.

Theology is a science, not a 'feeling'.

I sometimes read a passage or a paragraph from a book that makes me think that the author must have been inspired. Possibly even divinely inspired. And there is no doubt in my mind that the art of writing, once perfected, is as close to the pure act of creation described in so many mythologies.

We are often given gooseflesh by reading that one line, or quote or proverb, because it somehow speaks to us at an intimate level that we ourselves do not understand. How can that be? How can authors, long dead, say something in their works that hits us in the bullseye of our heart?

Perhaps, one of the reasons this is possible, is because each of us, for the most part, are provided with the same range of feelings or emotions and experiences. Many of us know the agony of unrequited love, or the loss of a dear friend or loved one. We also know the joys of watching our children grow or of holding a newborn. Those things, when we write about them, touch within us a place of commonality. They are the things that make us human.

Mythologies, developed as a means to identify with our ancestors and with our heritage, often touch us on similar emotions. We feel an intense sense of belonging. This is our history.

However, there comes a point when no matter how much something speaks to us, we must remember that those feelings are subjective. They are deeply personal and they mean something to us, but they are not universal in the purest sense.

This is why there is so much danger in making claims that what is written down in a history or mythology is literally (I mean this in every sense of the word) divinely inspired. It is dangerous because if we believe that we are obliged to obey those mythologies because of the inspiration, we fall into the trap of trying to get everyone on board with our way of seeing things.

This is most especially true with Biblical scriptures. It is fine to believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. It is not fine to try to convince everyone that they should believe the same thing, as well.

Theologians, whose sole job is to break down the historical, theological and mythological aspects of scriptures will agree that the works themselves are wonderful and full of wonderful things. However, secular theologians, those whose study is not influenced by any inherent divinity in the texts, will also warn that those same scriptures can be misused by applying to them a general divinity that must be obeyed.

However, a deep and lifelong study of scripture is a fine thing to attempt. And if, within those scriptures, one finds a mold into which they can pour themselves, for their betterment, there is nothing wrong with that.

Sadly, we often find that a person's theology is frightfully thin, when they've come to believe that the essence of the scriptures are perfect and unerring truth.

After a lifetime of study, until recently, I cannot dig beyond a small shred of doubt within myself that while beautiful and not to be missed, the writings are not inspired. I can take it one step further and say that I believe that the Gospels, for instance, are the more likely to be inspired, because their combined message is so good. However, speaking historically, Paul's writings came before the Gospels. To me, being absolutely subjective, I do not see Paul's writings being inspired at all. They are clever, well written and even deeply important to the faith as a whole, but I do not see them as being inspired.

To make this theological break from Paul, for some, would seem the worst thing possible. And yet, the faith is not about Paul. It is about Jesus. Even Paul writing about Jesus is not Jesus himself.

Since Jesus is the prime point of the Gospels, and the stories are directly dealing with his ministry, it makes sense that we would think them divine, since the Gospels claim Jesus' divinity. However, it seems to me that Paul's ministry was about Paul, and we are never made to believe that Paul is divine, accepting that he is doing what he believes is divine work. That is an entirely different concept.

When we delve into the mysteries of these scriptures, we must be wary enough to discern our feelings and desires from what we read. Just because it agrees with us, or gives us comfort, does not make it universally true to all.

Doubt and Belief

Many of us are convinced that the things we believe to be true are true regardless of whether there is any evidence to support the beliefs.

Some of these beliefs are related to concepts that are difficult to quantify.

I know my wife and sons love me. I believe that they do. The evidence is difficult to procure, because the evidence isn't really tangible. If you ask me how I know for sure, I would be hard pressed to give any real examples.

And yet I still believe they do.

Belief, in this case, is basically in a healthy state. It helps me to believe that they love me.

Sometimes, though, belief can be challenged by many examples of tangible evidence as in when I believe something that is really not true, can be disproved with evidence and yet still believe.

This type of belief is often very harrowing to the one who has it. And very often we need to realize that we each hold these kinds of unhealthy belief.

That is why it is important to keep doubt as a part of our arsenal. Doubt provides a gap for evidence that we might otherwise choose to ignore.

A few days ago I was having a conversation with a family member and they were telling me about a legend that circulates in the reservation in our state. The Indians there tell of a group of smallish woodland warriors that harry the tourists and kidnap children.

The Fox Mulder in me wants to find some explanation that supports this: long list tribe of pigmy Indians, and so forth.

But the reality is, it is probably just a legend. And legends are, by their very fabric, both believable and unbelievable at the same time.

To hold such a belief, though, is harmless, but it is the symptom of a mind that rejects doubt.

My first reaction to this tale was skeptical laughter. My family member reinforced the truth of the tale by claiming he knows some folks who know for sure.

Regardless if there are pigmy tribes in the mountains around Cherokee, we need to temper our innate gullibility with doubt. It may be true, but we had better seek to prove or disprove it. By blindly accepting this, and making it part of the fabric of our world view, we threaten to burden our ability to be incredulous to any and all claims.

If in doubt, it probably isn't true and that's why I always hang on to doubt.

How to not care enough to actually care PT 2

I read recently that it has been scientifically proven that there are two types of people in this world. Those who can be swayed to change their minds with evidence, and those who cannot be swayed to change their mind, regardless of the amount of evidence presented to them.

That is a very disheartening thing for me.

I am sometimes amazed by the fact that I'm surrounded by people who seem to have no ability to think clearly about things that are totally and obviously wrong from my perspective.

I think the thing that affects me so is that most of these people I love and respect deeply. They're either close friends, or close family. How is it then, that they can allow themselves to follow terrible ideologies?

Well, first, I think we need to provide some context.

First of all, in my line of work, I spend a lot of time researching things. I look for facts. I try very hard to make sure the information I give someone is the closest it can be to factual and actual. That can be very difficult, of course, bu one gets the hang of it.

This developed in me a sense of skepticism. I doubt everything, until I can get something that corroborates what I'm being expected to believe first hand.

So when someone tells me that they get their news from a certain TV show, or that they think that This or That is the worst thing ever, my knee-jerk reaction is to take them to several sources that correctly indicate what's actually going on. Which in many cases is exactly the opposite of what they believe.

Oh, I could be a crusader for Truth among my friends and family. And I would quickly alienate everyone.

There are two problems, here. First, I'm entitled to my own opinions. And so are they.
I don't have to like it, but I cannot do anything about it.

The only thing I can do is love those folks, like I have been and continue to be their friend or family. I have no righteous calling to sway them to my side of the boat.

Now, I may be one of those who will change his mind with enough evidence. I suspect that, in some cases, I may be quite stubborn to the evidence, if I don't want to acknowledge it. Who will correct me? No one. They will simply love me for who I am and wait for me to see the light.

I'll return the favor.

It's not important that I think folks are deluding themselves, or are just plain silly in their personal beliefs. It doesn't change a thing, except me. All I can do is try very hard to be accepting of them and support them and wait for them to see things differently.

We really can all get along if we simply don't care enough to actually start caring.

How to not care enough to actually care PT 1.

A friend wrote me recently lamenting how old friends of ours had changed. Mainly one, who, at one point had been a believer and has changed to an atheist.
My wife encouraged me on the matter saying that, regardless of where I was in my own life, I needed to help my friend, if he needed me.

In relaying to him my thoughts on the matter, I found that the best way for me to deal with things like that, like when people who you know and love believe things that disagree with my beliefs is to just not care.

I don't care if my friend is a rabid atheist. I don't care if a friend is a conservative. I don't care if they're slightly racist. I don't care if they want Donald to win for president. I sometimes struggle with the opinions or lifestyles that people have, sometimes, but only out of an inability to reconcile the things in my mind. It has no bearing, no effect on my friendship with them. So I just don't care.

By not caring, I can forego all the internal dialog and get right to being a friend. I simply do not care.

Another friend of mine spent some time trying to win me over to his way of thinking. Gently, but yet with enough force that it was obvious to me. He, of course, knows that I disagree. Nevertheless he continued to try to do what I think he sincerely meant to be helpful.

This tore me up, from the onset, because I had no intention of ever adopting his particular way of thinking. To me, it was outdated, slightly hypocritical and very obtuse. (His way of thinking about this subject, not him).

So I agonized about it. But then I realized that I just didn't care. I realized that I had it within me to let his ideas pass into my head and then back out again. I could smile and say "I never thought of things that way" and let it go. Just to acknowledge another person's ideas doesn't give them strength over me.

And once again, I realized that I didn't care enough to let it really eat at me.

And when I realized that by not caring what a person believes, it actually freed me up to care about them, I suddenly realized that I had been putting the emphasis of my daily interactions on what other people believed or thought, rather than on them.

Suddenly, I was able to care about them.

I realize that certain beliefs or lifestyles may be threatening to you or to your own beliefs or lifestyles. I know that some may just be concerned for dear old friends who have changed a lot.
No matter what, the best and most efficient way to be a super friend, is to just not care and get right on to caring for them.

The things that matter most

Over the last few weeks, we have allowed our regular routine to be disrupted. You wouldn't suspect two people who are not quite middle-aged to be so set in our ways, but eons of getting up in time to make sure that not only both of us were ready, but that our boys were ready for school as well, leaves an indelible mark on one's circadian rhythms.

We jumped off of this schedule in order to share in an annual family reunion in some other part of the country, roughly equi-distant from all of us spread across the right half of the nation. We had fun, and it was remarkably good to see everyone, as always. It was diverting too. We take off work, and so, the regular morning shuffle to get the dogs out and fed, ourselves clean and fed and off to work on time, vanished.

After all too short a visit, some of the family came home with us, too and stayed with us for a few extra days. This not only gave a pleasant feeling of extension to the holiday, but it made for an opportunity to spend some real quality time with people that we love a lot. It is often difficult to spend a nice candid evening on the porch having a discussion among twenty people, though we tried.

And then, before we knew it, our family was on the move again, departing on the first of several legs to get home.

We were on the verge of settling back into our daily routine, when my wife's cousin called to say they would be coming back through from Florida and would we mind if they stayed. Of course not. Fate had managed, over the past few years, that we were in their neck of the woods each summer and suddenly, it was our chance to host them. With two wonderful kids and a sunny weekend, they made our weekend fun, happy and a wonderful memory.

Suddenly, however, it seems that the two weeks of bliss are over. We are now faced with the regular grind of summer mornings, again.

That was what I thought. A few days ago, I went to get the paper off the front walk and I noticed a back to school flyer advertising all the things that students in public school usually need. Pencils, notebook paper, three-ring binders and calculators were all on sale. I remember feeling as though a weight of stress was crowding in on me. I hate shopping for school supplies, above all things. The atmosphere of the supercenter buzzes with the kind of thick tension that one must feel on a battlefield.

But, suddenly, and oddly in unison with a bright beam of early-morning sunlight that broke through the clouds, I realized that we had gone for school supplies for the last time, last year.

All three of our children had made it through public education. We were no longer obliged to get into a tug of war battle with a lady over No. 2 yellow Faber Castell pencils.

The relief was, I'm sure, palpable for the squirrels and crows in our old oak out front.

I shared the news with my wife, who had already come to that conclusion, herself.

With our youngest shipping off to college in another county, we would be free from the burden to pack lunches, wake grumpy teenagers, bustle them out the door on time, and so on.

Not only did our routine change when the school year ended (as it always has) it stabilized into a new norm. One that will mostly likely be the case for us, for the next few decades.

And so, I suppose that while it may feel as though we're getting back into the same old routine, in actuality, we are embarking on a new leg of our family journey. And while it was wonderful to be with friends and family over the last few weeks, the thing that matters most to me, is that we appreciate every single aspect of our lives together, because routines shift and change, and we often don't realize they're done, until it's too late.

The eventual end of ignorance

Looking around, especially on Social Media, one could find that they are depressed by the constant barrage of arrogance, ignorance, hate and outrage. It seems like everywhere you turn, nowadays, someone is offended by something, or angry about something or trying to rally support for something.

Even people you know, love; even family members, will say something that shocks you about their beliefs, opinions, etc. It has become par for the course.

More than this, if you read a little into the threads of posts, you will see what I have dubbed the Lizard Devolution. As a person is more roundly offended, or on the other side, more full of bloated and opinionated zeal, the quality of the dialog disintegrates into name calling and logic goes out the window.

Inspite of all this, though, I have noticed a trend, especially among friends I follow on Social Media. More and more, they (and myself, too) seem to be eschewing this kind of behavior. They do not participate, and they are removing those who do.

This strange emancipation has lead to another emancipation in the real world. Some people are beginning to see the reality that, if it sounds idiotic, it probably is. They are no longer participating in

But, instead of swelling and becoming universal, this movement toward sanity in dialog has actually caused something rather unnerving to occur. The voices of irrational dialog have grown louder, by turns, and the lunacy of their views have become darker.

This is frightening to some, and I agree it does not seem like a positive thing. But, I will contend with you, that it is the best possible thing.

See, when you single out an ideology as essentially bad for people, the people who follow that ideology get nervous. That nervousness is based on the fear that they may indeed be wrong. But that fear is never something they would admit. Instead, it leads to the bravado and saber rattling of overly self-assured ranting. The ranting is a symptom of fear that what is being touted is actually nothing but a figment of their imagination.

So, there will be a tide of ranting and yelling and Lizard Devolution on threads and comments, and in real life, too. And it may seem to those of us that sanity has left this world.

But in reality, what those of us who love truth are really seeing, is the death throes of ignorance and those who wallow in it. The bliss has gone and fear rules them. That means that there is an eventual end coming to the proliferation of ignorance. Sanity, hope, logic and peace will rule.

In the meantime we must learn to hear those rantings for what they really are: the retreat of ignorance.

What you believe is what you get.

There are things about belief that are reassuring to us. The things we believe can be a comfort to us in a life that is sometimes quite painful and dreary.

The problem with beliefs that comfort us is that we must approach everything with skepticism. We must be willing to change what we believe in order to keep from being enthralled by them.

Too often, a belief can become an obstacle or barrier to us, when it should more reasonably be something that aids in our way through life.

Being hindered by our beliefs is an all too human condition. We fall for some pretty weird ideas, generally, and have the amazing power of being able to believe something with no evidence in support of it, except word of mouth.

And this condition of ours is not black and white. It isn't just those who are gullible or easily fooled who fall for this human trick. I know many rational and enlightened folks who adhere to certain beliefs, not because they cannot see them for what they are, but because the choose not to.

Sometimes our beliefs not only comfort us, but they reinforce other beliefs we have, helping us to stay in a comfortable place, mentally.

However, comfort is not something that we're guaranteed, in this life.

As we go forward, daily, it helps to keep a close watch on our beliefs. Are they helping us, or are they hurting us? Are we free to ask tough questions of ourselves about our beliefs? Are our beliefs reinforcing other convenient beliefs?

You see, if I believe that the government is putting chemicals on jets that are being sprayed over the nation to keep us complacent, that's one thing. But if that belief is reinforced by another that lets me believe we are living in a police state, or that the government is coming to get our guns, or that aliens are really in control, etc. I get caught up in a rather nice net of my own making.

The real trouble then begins. It is when we are faced with evidence contrary to our strongly held beliefs that we have the choice, either to accept what we see at face value and change our position, or continue in self delusion.

Sadly, we aren't likely to seek out things that challenge our beliefs at all. We search out those things that reinforce what we hold most dear.

And so it is that each day, we must be willing to let free our grip on those beliefs, so that we can pare away those that prevent us from experiencing life at its fullest. We must be willing to change our minds, in the face if compelling evidence, rather than refusing to and becoming ensnarled in the web of delusion.

The power of changing your mind.

I have a few friends with whom I enjoy a perfect disagreement of opinions. We get along fine, in general, but sometimes we close on that ground where my opinion or belief conflicts with theirs.
Mainly, we do not treat this ground as a DMZ. We, rather enthusiastically, wade into debate. I share my points, they share theirs, and then magic happens: we learn.
This is not a natural state of affairs. Nor is it perfect. There are areas where either side won't budge and that, of course is fine, but the idea is to come away having learned something.
In general, we think that our opinions, regardless of how well formed, are correct, at least for us.
And that self assurance also convinces us that other opinions are wrong.
Standing pat on that impasse between friends can rapidly devolve into name calling and hurt feelings and even ruined friendships.
Compromise, on the other had depends entirely on a willingness to be flexible, but may also be insincere or condescending or just as brutal. "I'll believe that, if you believe THIS."
Sincerely held beliefs do not discount other people's beliefs. But a sincere wish to see those beliefs from the other person's perspective does not discount our own.
Learning this, while not easy, is a discipline worthy of cultivating.
Some of my friends and I are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. But we have learned the value of the other's opinions and beliefs and how seeing those opinions from the other's perspective, or at least trying, can have a very beneficial and enlivening effect.
It's not perfect, but it has enhanced our friendships, I think. And we've learned a lot that we wouldn't have if we maintained our stubborn and bullheaded defense of our positions.

Holding on.

What makes us cling so desperately to the things we believe in the face of fact, truth and rationality?
I think that we tend to describe ourselves as being "set in our ways" but then, when something challenges that mindset, why do we rail against it? 

I was reminded today, by a friend, of an old fear that I clung to, more out of habit than true belief. My Mother had always taught us that looking at the horoscope was wrong. It was not of God and therefore, it was not to be looked at.

So, for years, I did not read a horoscope.

After my life began to change, and I began to realize that the things I had held onto were fading and incoherent, I still avoided them. I just let my eyes float over them, without looking.

But why?

Habit? Fear? 

Looking back, now, it was probably that I felt that, as I changed, the horoscope was just the same as what I was leaving. It was useless, agonizingly vague and had no power over me. I should say, could not have power over me.

Funny how that applies on both sides.

Some believe that the month you're born in affects your disposition. That's as may be, though I've yet to see any solid science that proves this. 

But just like the other kinds of pseudoscience, like aliens and bigfoot. It would be cool if these were somehow proved to be real. But until they are, we have no cause to believe in them. Without the science to back up these observational pipedreams, they are just pipedreams.

And as Neil DeGrasse Tyson has said, science doesn't care what you believe.

So, I don't read the horoscope, still but it is mainly because I know it's nonsense, not because I fear it.
And the same is true of other documents to which mystical power is associated, or in which, can be found the source of all truth and power.

I used to be afraid not to believe, but not any longer.

Holding onto things can be beneficial, and it is a strongly human thing to do. But letting go of things that have control over you is also beneficial and it proves that we can learn by evidence, and rational curiosity, and not by pseudoscience and fear.

The way of No Enemies

Our library's Teen department just had a program about Aikido. The Sensei, who has been teaching and doing Aikido for years, spoke a bit about the philosophy of the martial art and I was pretty amazed about it.

Aikido is the only Martial Art that does not seek to harm the enemy or attacker. In fact, the main point of Aikido is to prevent the attacker from being hurt. It surprised me, as I was put into a hold, to demonstrate the graceful power of one of the moves; how this was a dichotomy to what we usually think about when we think about martial arts. It's mostly kicks and strikes and ways to crush or eliminate your enemy.

In Aikido, one of the main aspects is that there are no enemies.

This got me thinking. In our world, we have so many people who we might consider enemies. People of different faiths, or philosophies or different politics. We decide, in our hearts, that, since we don't agree, they're the bad guy. And likewise, they do the same to us.

How often do we really look at other people like they are not our enemies, even if we disagree?

I tend to take the viking way of doing things. Enemies are to be left alone, until they try to hurt me or mine. Then, I act with righteous and exacting vengeance. Even in this, I usually let whatever things they do go, because it's almost never worth me going to prison.

But the way of Aikido says that even the neighbor who poisoned your tree or ruined your fence is not an enemy. They are not enemies, no matter what offenses they have committed against you.
There are NO enemies.
That's a pretty unusual, but in my honest opinion, a very valuable and thoughtful philosophy.

It isn't an easy one to adopt, but it may be worthy to try.

All the things we call ourselves.

I had an experience in a thought experiment the other day. I was building a gazebo from a kit and I was doing it in the hot sun, and as I went along, I tried to focus on the things I was telling myself, internally.
Before I started, I could hear my mind saying "You're going to need help with this."
As I got going, I could hear, "You'll get this section done, but you'll need someone to hold the other bit, while you set it up."
On and on, as I built it, I focused on my internal dialog. When I had finished the roof structure, I kept thinking how hard it was going to be to lift it up and that I would need help. But there was no help forthcoming, and it needed to be done and I did it.
Once it was complete, I stood there feeling a bit proud at how I had managed to do it all myself, with no help, despite the internal words I was telling myself.
This made me think. If I tell myself I cannot do a thing, but forge on, does that make my internal dialog useless, or less powerful?
What about the things I think about myself, the labels I apply to me? Do they, too, fall away, after I've proved them wrong?

Here's an experiment: Think about the things you've labeled your life with. Words like, Republican, Democrat, Christian, balding, chubby, slow, out-of-shape, short, too tall, impatient, grouchy in the morning. Think of all of those things like they are little items you can set on a shelf or desk, like I take off my glasses or watch. You're still you, but now, you're just you without all the other labels you have applied to yourself.
Without those labels, what do we know about you? About me?
Well, for one, I know that I am alive. I am a human. I feel emotions. I get hungry and full and have other physical needs.
Now, imagine that each of us eliminated all those labels from our lives, except the very essential ones. What if, as a moment of thoughtfulness comes over us, and we can look around and remove the labels from those around us, as well.
I look around and I see other humans who get cold, or hungry or tired, and who feel incompetent in some ways, etc. It's not hard, if you do that, to see in them some really endearing qualities. Qualities that make them all together similar to ourselves. We are all one species after all.

Some of what I tell myself is just me remembering some of the things I heard when I was younger. People doubted me because I was younger, or for being too rambunctious or too talkative.
Those doubts, and impatiences with me, have stayed with me. In a way, they have become me labeling myself as not very good at something, because I doubt myself.
But, as I move forward, I will look around at the gazebo and think about how much I had to fight against my doubts internally. I will think about how much I was able, over the years, to improve and get better and do things, despite my own internal dialog. Part of that, was a father-in-law who would not limit me to what others thought about me, or what I thought about myself. He encouraged me to try, anyway.
But, in the end, it has helped me to loosen the grip on all the labels I have applied to myself. So that I can see that we're all basically humans who struggle with things day-to-day, and that it's easier for me, when I allow myself to not be defined by those negative labels and all the things we call ourselves.

Mysticism as the Death of Rational thought

I don't get -- will never get -- how people can adhere to a mystical mentality in the face of reality. What could be more mystifying than learning about the orbits of Pluto's moons?
Yet, people want to pretend they see little supernatural workings in their lives on a daily basis.
Fine, I get it if you get chills from a hymn or some other ritual. That's for you. But don't try to make it a universal truth.
Reality is often hard enough to discern without muddying the water. I really think that muddying the water only confuses things.
If you want to believe in mysticism, that's fine, but keep it to yourself. Don't add a bunch of useless and unprovable realities to our one reality. It's hopeless.
If you believe, fine, you believe. But don't muddy the waters for other people.

How to teach right from wrong.

First, let me address spectacle.

Whether you love 19 Kids and Counting and think it's just a wonderful family doing God's work, or if it's disgusting to you in every way, the Duggar family are in the news and this time, it's for the worst thing imaginable. Sexual abuse.
But, just like everything that the media hawks jump onto, this is just more fuel for the fire of the people who feast on this sort of scandal. Sad, empty lives with no meaning, so they feed and feed on the bad news of the minute, and from all that feeding comes a hugely skewed set of strong opinions that just fill the airwaves and interwebs with more of the same.

The wrong of it all.

Strip away the spectacle and you have a young man with a very repressed sexual experience, doing something horrible to his sisters and possibly some other young girls.
Now, at 14 and 15, is he culpable?
Yes.
But so are his parents.
The reality is, that with 19 kids, how can you expect to give each child a true and valuable upbringing? A parent with two kids may feel strapped to spend enough quality time with both of them, to feel they've done a good enough job. And, to be honest, what's good enough?
No Jim Bob and his wife, Michelle Duggar have to come to the front in all this. They handled it badly, and they allowed something to happen multiple times, because they're too busy raising a truckload of kids, they're too obsessed with their own particular religious views and they're too concerned about their popularity to deal with it at all appropriately.
The young man, Josh, needs help. The whole family does. He did wrong, yes. And that is awful. He must be held accountable and he must face the punishment for his deeds, but so should his parents.

For those with no voices.
The girls, for me, are the worst part of all of this. They have had no therapy, they're given no second thought by their parents. They're just treated like objects that a naughty boy played with. Those girls are already having to deal with horrible retribution being rained on the family and are caught between that and the terrible indoctrination about sexuality coming from these people who cannot stop having sex long enough to realize it's ruining theirs and their children's lives.
The girls need help.
First, it should be that they are removed from this household. Sorry, we've taken kids away from parent's because the parents were "off the Grid, and everyone is all up in arms about that, but they're fine with 19 kids living in the same home? They're fine with sexual misconduct, too. They're fine with the fact that the parents have done such a paltry job of setting an example that the kids don't stand a chance, says a lot about how messed up the people's priorities are in this situation.
Focus on the victims of these crimes.

Setting the Example.

There's nothing wrong with raising your kids in a religious lifestyle. Only, give the kids a choice. Once they're old enough to start having sexual pressures internally, a completely natural thing, incidentally, start helping them figure out a way to express that sexuality in a healthful and thoughtful way. Curiosity about one's sexuality is nothing to be considered a sin. What can be considered a sin is on one side never using contraception, even when you could be endangering over a dozen kids, and other side, expecting your kids to remain chaste and celibate until they marry.
It's so hypocritical, that I'm not sure how a kid could ever come away from a situation like that knowing which way is up with their sexuality.
If you want your kids to be healthy sexually, you have to model that. Having kid after kid after kid isn't really a model that works, obviously, especially after you add the religious aspect of their beliefs.

As a former Catholic, the idea that you either abstained, or just kept having kids, was always suspicious to me, as though it was the Church's way of making sure there were always more believers.
I have some very good friends, who each have a large number of kids. I think it's great, and I have no problem with big families. That's not my point here. But, in many cases, youngsters need to know how to deal with their feelings. And in the raw and raucous lifestyle of a housefull of kids, you need to be on your game dealing with all the things that happen to developing kids.
So, it seems to me that the Duggar family could have done one or more things to prevent this whole thing, if they'd thought it through.
First, they could stop having kids. They could spend more time trying to educate their kids about sexual responsibility and not just teaching repressive tenets based on ancient (and well outdated) scriptures.
And they could take care of their daughters.

So why we love this as a spectacle, I'll never understand. But as long as there are young people in this world, it will always be their parent's and guardian's responsibility to teach and emulate sexually healthy lifestyles, accepting all variations thereof, and expecting that kids will be confused, scared and certainly ashamed of some of their feelings, until we help them sort it out.

Don't participate in the spectacle, but please do help to model what's right and what's wrong to your kids.
The Duggars are a perfect example of what not to do.

Not a hater.

Despite my previous posts, I do not hate Christians. I couldn't. That would be like me hating my father or brother because they live in PA and I no longer do.

The reality is simple. I don't like religion. It frightens me. I feel like a slave released from chains and I worry that, as we move forward, that others may be feeling trapped or enthralled too.
I don't mind if people have faith, or believe. I'm not exactly sure I'd call myself an atheist. I'm not. I look at the universe and am amazed and appalled by the distance and scope and I worry that we've got it wrong. That there is so much more out there than our tiny minds can elucidate.

But that said, I'm not against believers and I don't hate Christians, or other religious folks. I just want them to be whole. And I do not think that in all cases, religious dependency, like all dependencies, allows one to be whole.

If, as you read this or other posts, you thin decide that I have it in for Christians, or other believers, you're completely wrong. I know that spirituality is something that humans have an amazing ability to perceive and experience, and I love that about us. I just want people to not be deluded into a short or narrow focus of the way things actually are.

As we live, from day to day, we have to look for those things that enhance our lives in a way that is positive and healthful. If Christianity is that for someone reading my words, then I am all for it.

I would never put myself against an individual's right to choose their own belief system.
My hope, as I see it, is to try to rescue those who need rescuing and keep religion from becoming a tyranny that forces those with other or no beliefs to comply.

The truth about breaking free

My good friend is a transhumanist. He believes that we must work to keep ourselves healthy and intelligent so that we can develop scientific means to prolong our lives. He believes that we are destined for the stars, but that, until we can work together to better humanity, there will never be enough momentum to really settle other worlds. The biggest obstacle in his opinion? Religion.
I tend to agree.

I am perhaps too old school to want to live forever. I, it must be said, value the idea of death. Always have. It's a very human thing. And, while I no longer follow the ways of religion or take thought for the afterlife, I am coming to terms with my death. And that has helped me to live without fear of the afterlife or of loss and pain.

That said, there are many people on this world who are not dead but who wish they were. Or act that way. Their main goal in life is to muddle through, avoiding everything, basically, until they can go home to be with Jesus.
And while it may surprise you I get this mentality. Life is long and full of grief. How many children must die before their parents, before the weight of sadness crushes you? Losing loved ones is stark, horrible, and endlessly prowling on the margins. It, like our own death, is inevitable.
We can see that a person who clings to a religious belief in the face of all this loss can be forgiven if it gives them hope to see their child or lover again one day.

I, too, would have continued on believing in the face of my own incredulity, if I thought I could see my mother and grandmothers again. The only thing that saved me from a life of fear and trembling and worshipping the afterlife was, perhaps ironically, love.

How could I pine for death to see lost loved ones while my own children and wife and friends were busy loving me right here?
If I am loved now, then why would I ignore that?

People are afraid of death. They are afraid of how it will take their families. They do not want to be alone in their grief. I do not blame them. But the only real thing that we can continue to believe in is love. While all the people that we loved may go, we must not forget their love for us. It is painful, but somehow it is the fulcrum upon which our lives balance. It swings us, love does, to face the reality of our situations, which often is, that we are still alive. The only thing to do with ourselves in that condition is to live our lives to the fullest.
We cannot go forth clinging to mythology and hoping to die, if we allow ourselves to encounter the full power of those that truly love us.

We may someday colonize the stars. We may someday be able to shrink the vast distances in spacetime. We may someday learn to live forever.
But my friend is right, we will never be able to do that if we focus on religion and forget about love.

The end of an era.

Many Christians, today, do not want to admit that what we are seeing in this world, is the end of a very long era.
I was reading a wonderful Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece by famed member of the Four Horsemen, Daniel Dennett. You can read the article here.
Dennett's main point was, I think, that as we get more and more intelligent and have more access to information and news and ideas, we are less likely to believe in the supernatural. People will not turn to God if they believe he is irrelevant.
But, likewise, if something horrible happens, he says, like a real world wide catastrophe, you will see a drastic rise in religion and religious participation.

For me, I rejoice in the knowledge that people are falling away. If you have time someday, go to r/exChristian on Reddit. Read a few of the posts on the first few pages. There are tons of young people saying on this subreddit that they are no longer able to delude themselves into buying their parent's beliefs, and they are falling away. And, even in the face of harming family relationships, these young people are deciding that being honest and truthful is better than lying to themselves and others.

The reality is, for Christians, that, as long as they try to continue to sway people back, but don't really live according to their own avowed beliefs, things will continue to go sour. I know many people who only attend church because they believe that it's the right thing to do, or because that's all they've ever done.

But, there are also those who are Christians, but who do not go about bashing folks on the head with it. They may or may not attend church. They may or may not even acknowledge their own faith to others. These people, whether they know it or not, are the next stage of Christianity. And hopefully, they will find it in their own hearts to continue on this road of silent observation.

Sadly, though, as with anything, as something dies, it becomes more violent, more radical. The death throes of organized religion are upon us. But, as we get closer, the people who are irrationally dependent on their 'faith' will be more vocal; will go to new and horrid lengths to bring out the worst in their religion.

We, the rest of us, must watch for these people. We must handle ourselves carefully. But we must not live in fear. We must be willing to help those who are leaving get where they need to go and we must be patient with those whose lives are being ruled by fear. As we watch the end of the era of Religion, I hope that what we see are people getting the help they need from the more viable belief systems.

Lost and found

As a parent, the worst possible pain you could suffer, short of losing your child is to not know where they are for a prolonged period of time.
A family member's daughter disappeared for just over a day and the entire family was horrified.
The feeling of helplessness was awful, even for those of us far away.
At one point I messaged my two oldest Christian friends and asked them to please keep their thoughts on the situation.
I did this for two reasons: first, they both have daughters. Second, I no longer believe praying helps me.
But each of them still do. So I knew I would feel better telling them.

There is nothing wrong, on my book, if people pray. It is a form of communication and meditation. I do meditate, but I can no longer pray in the main Christian sense.

Almost immediately after I told them, they found her. I do not make claims here. I only know it helped me to share it with them.  Whether is is a ghost of the amputation of religion from my life; an old habit hard to break or just silliness on my part I cannot say.

All I know, is that I am so relieved for her family, that she's been found.

Feeling and no longer feeling.

As a Christian, I used to feel pretty sure that unless I was "on fire" I was falling short of God's glory.
"On fire" was a mentality that filled me with exuberance; high, happy emotions relating to God's literal presence in my life. These periods were short and irregular, but we were taught that this was the desired mentality to have.
When I wasn't on fire, in some cases, I was just regular me, with my guard down. Cussing, smoking, the occasional beers with my pals. And I would always, after times like this, feel that I had been sinning, because the reality was that while  I was being just a regular guy, I was being deceitful to my real source of joy, my faith.
There were times when, feeling down about myself for falling short, I was painfully aware of how far God seemed from me.
I struggled deeply with this. And it was in these times of pain that the doubts would begin to creep into my consciousness.
Was I really feeling God in my life? Was he really communicating with me? Did we really know for certain that we were doing this right?
These doubts plunged me even farther from my jovial self, because there was no relief from them and certainly, there was no way to discuss them with anyone. Doubts are not a viable thing in Christianity.
Over the years, though, I avoided trying to feel the On Fire joy. I tried to cleave a path of reality in the turbulent waters of life. I strove to be more honest with myself. I allowed the doubts to take root and grow.
But doubts are like tulips: they spend a long time growing, burst open in a vivid color and then fall away.
The more doubts I allowed into my life, the more I had to face the fact that, once the doubt came to fruition, what was left was an irrationality that I clinged to blindly.
The first to go was the belief that I had to maintain some florid exuberance and stay on fire.
I began to realize that suddenly, the way I was everyday, with all of my struggles and flaws and emotions was an okay way for me to be. I didn't feel any longer that I had to somehow keep up a fake and false feeling of spiritual excitement.
Also, I began to realize that, instead of sinning, and falling short of the glory, I was simply dealing with the things that humans deal with in their lives. Disappointments and dreary days and bad choices were all mine; they were all my own and no other had a say in them.
One by one my doubts flourished and left me with the realization that I had been scammed into trying to be someone else's version of who they thought I should be instead of being who I really was.
When I cottoned to that, I felt very resentful -- I was totally dismayed -- that there are others who, even in the face of evident truth, continued to persist in blind attempts to reach that emotional high, like junkies, rather than face facts.
For years, I grieved. I tried different versions of the faith, adjusting here and there, trying to maintain a personal tradition of being a Christian.
Eventually, though, it all fell away. No ritual, no precedent, not even tradition could hold me to what was basically a self perpetuated lie. I knew that, no matter what, the reality was, it was all a lie I allowed myself to believe.
When I came free of it, I was no longer seeking the painful impetus of religiosity, but was calmly and quietly mesmerized with life.
Do I still call myself a Christian? No. I do not and refuse to label where I am. There is no mysticism in it, except a willingness to find and revere the majesty of nature, of love and of truth. There's no need to wave your arms in the air to feel the spirit. You can actually feel genuine awe without convincing yourself you are.

Permanency

I am often caught off guard by how I take for granted things around me. I assume that, because they've always been a certain way, they always will be that way.
I do this, even in the face of the growth of something I've planted or the death of a tree.
I sometimes think that our sense of permanency comes from how short and narrow our perspectives are.
However, if we take the longer view, that we are only here for a short time, in the scheme of things, maybe it would help us to take more advantage of the time we have right now.
I often lament the ideologies that make us focus on the afterlife. But I also lament the ideology that makes us forget or helps us ignore the fact that we are someday not going to be here.
Every day is a gift. But nothing is permanent.

Contamination

I was watching a video, a few days ago that showed babies exploring and being curious, while Neil DeGrasse Tyson was speaking about how that natural instinct of ours to learn and explore; to be curious is quite often squelched by parents and adults at large.
It is called "The Most Human Activity". Watch it here.
This got me thinking.
Parents aren't purposely squelching this natural desire to explore. They are, at least in some cases, I believe, trying to keep the children safe.
However,there is a level of parental participation that falls down a terrible rabbit hole. Indoctrination.
It seems to me that basically forcing the children in our lives to believe things that we believe is falling short of what it means to be a parent. Still millions of parents across the world are purposely forcing their own beliefs on their kids.
Now, some of you will say that I'm overreacting. You will say that it is the prerogative for a parent to decide what to teach their kids. I agree. What I'm saying is it's fine to introduce your beliefs to your kids. What I'm not saying is it's not fine to make your kids feel as though they have no choice to decide for themselves if what you believe is right for them.
The downfall of the Christian Dogma is its mandatory participation. Of course, initially, it's singing Christian songs about Jesus and so on. But very slowly, as the child grows, it becomes inevitable that they make the connection that if they don't believe, or can't, they are sinners and won't go to heaven.
Imagine that!
For years, I strongly doubted and disbelieved. I was terrified to tell my mother, or my church family. I would have alienated myself and caused huge amounts of pain for everyone. All of this, because of indoctrination.
Now, many Christians will say that a child cannot get a good dose of morality without the Christian upbringing. Christians routinely exclude other moralities. None of them are good enough. They adhere to the "train up your child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it" mentality.
And this is not a bad mentality -- it's logical, albeit, not very religious. It can be applied to any child, anywhere.
But this is meant as an internal and not external statement. It refers to spiritual growth, not mental or behavioral growth.
Oddly enough, however, it really makes no difference, either way.
For example, my brother's son was baptised and we were made his godparents. Meaning, that if anything ever happens to my brother, we take over the role of parent. All of this happened in the church that they do not regularly (or ever) attend, and while we were getting ready, my other nephew had to wear this fancy outfit that had a sort of bib on it with the cross in white satin.
He asked his mother why there was a "plus sign" on the bib.
We laughed but this has always served as an example to me. Here was a kid, who, unlike his father or myself, had not been indoctrinated with all of the nonsense they pour into kids. No guilt, no sin, nothing.
He just is a kid. It's wonderful.
On the other hand, children who cannot escape the gravity of the beliefs of their parents, often wind up being so forcefully indoctrinated, that they cannot even begin to think outside of the faith.
The point here is, that it's fine to discuss your faith with your kids and even to extol its virtues. But it isn't something that should be thrust upon them at any cost. Let them decide.
I promise that it will be better for them in the long run, when they call up something they struggle with, and you don't force them at the gunpoint of hell to follow it.
We need to stop contaminating our kids.

Complicity

I remember a morality experiment from an ethics class that went something like this: you witness two muggers attacking a man in an alley. You are physically fit, know several martial arts and can handle yourself. What do you do?
Some of the class waded right in to the rescue of man.
Some were inclined to wait until the muggers departed.
Some just kept on and did nothing.
I always found the last two to be amazing. Given some time to think about this (which one wouldn't have, presumably, in real time) some people would just keep going.
When the professor asked these classmates for their reasoning, their answers varied slightly but all basically claimed they did not have enough information.
They felt as though the man maybe deserved it; it wasn't a mugging but two fathers beating up a perv, and so on.
The other group, those who waited for the attackers to depart had interesting reasons too.
What if they were hurt, how much help would they be? Is it just to use force against men who are doing the same, and so on.
This group believed they would make the situation worse by wading right in, so they opted to wait until the man was alone, before getting help.
Finally, there were those who waded right in; those who believed that no matter the reason for the attack, or the consequences of helping, it was better to do something decisive than to wait.
The professor then added a new aspect to the thought experiment. What if by not acting to save the man being attacked made you morally complicit in his attack? What if, by not helping him, for whatever reason, you became as bad as his attackers? He redid the votes, and far more came out for wading in to help immediately.
This always fascinated me, because by adding this one caveat -- complicity -- people saw themselves as being in the wrong even for inaction. Where once it seemed morally justifiable to wait and do nothing, faced with their own guilt, they would wade into fight for the man.
We spent the whole class changing up various aspects of the scenario and recording responses. Only two people maintained that they would wade right in to the victim's defense, no questions asked.
The point here is not to illustrate that people are motivated differently by different situations. The point is to call to mind the question of complicity.
There are many people who do not condone violence in the name of religion, even if they are adherents to said religion. They believe to their core that the violences, verbal or physical, perpetuated against others by members of their own faiths are the worst possible thing.
But what do they do to stop it?
I posted a video yesterday that showed a pastor advocating for a literal reading of the Levitical laws regarding homosexuals. (Scroll down to find it.)
I asked, what if there were people in that congregation who had a secret that they were terrified to share, because they felt trapped into being in that man's congregation?
What I failed to ask was how everyday common run-of-the-mill believers would feel if I told them that by not standing against this evil dogma within their own faith, that they were just as bad as this pastor.
What I failed to make absolutely clear was to point out that, even if you disagree with his doctrine or ideology, if you don't stand against him and his type, you become just as morally complicit as if you were up there yourself touting his sermon.
Christians and Muslims today are not all of this caliber of evil. But, again, by failing to root extremism of any sort out of their faiths, they are not only allowing monstrous evils to continue against innocent people, they are also morally complicit in those evils.
It's not enough to claim you don't follow that dogma. You have to actually do something about it.

True Commitments.

Over the last few years, close friends of mine have been working to open a brewery in our town. The idea is several years, or perhaps a decade old. But, from the Kickstarter campaign until today,  I have seen them go through the spectrum of human emotion.
They have been varying degrees of ecstatic, exhausted, frazzled, fried, frustrated, pissed off, elated, grouchy, on the brink of despair; they have experienced and lived through the depths of commitment.
Like having a child, or starting a new relationship, when the going gets tough, we cannot just walk away, or give up in disgust.
But in a very similar theme, we cannot just go blindly forth and start something without the willingness to commit to it.
It's difficult for people, I believe, to understand the kind of commitment it takes to start a new business. Imagine leaving your job, where you have a regular paycheck and some job security on a huge gamble. Imagine how you wake up at night and wonder exactly what the hell you're doing? What if you or a loved one get's sick? What if you're house is washed away in a flood? The doubts and fears that vanish in the face of all you accomplish can really gnaw at your soul in the bleak moments.
If you're weak, or if you have an unclear purpose, or if you're just impulsive, imagine how crippling that fear could be.
My friends have not, and will not give up on their way to opening their brewery, regardless of the hours of struggle and frustration that they have had to work through, they are both committed.
The lesson that we can take from this is to be thoughtful about the things we decide to do in our lives.
Measure twice, cut once, as my grandfather would say.
Weigh the options. Have plan B and C and D in the margins in case. But in more than this, we have to be cautious that we are not talked into something that could be detrimental to us in the long run.

But at the same time, while I speak words of caution, we have to admit that there was a certain amount of bravery in the face of the unknown and courage in the face of despair that carried these two and their families to this point.
We cannot forever hide ourselves from possibilities that may make us better or help us grow, or to finally be happy.
But we cannot do it rashly.
One of the biggest scams in this world is that you can say a few words, with good intentions and some magical power will cover you with goodness and riches and no want. These philosophies claim that if you simply name what you want, it is as good as having it.
The reality is quite otherwise.
If you want something in this world, you have to be willing to grab hold of it and wrestle it to the ground with all of the bruises to ego and scratches to hope and dreams.
Do not be cowed into believing you can't do what you want if you're motivated and willing to take the knocks. But also, don't be scammed into thinking you're going to be given an easy time of it.

The log in their own eye

So many "moderate" Christians don't support or acknowledge the more zealous and fundamentalist parts of their faith.
They aim to not support "Bible Thumpers".
And yet, their fundamental beliefs are based on the same thing. The Bible is the infallible Word of God.
Christians, experts at feeling persecuted, do not want to be associated with extremism in their own faith. They often claim that they have nothing to do with that mentality, while at the same time adhering to the same mentalities, in a slightly calmer manner.
That, friends, is hypocrisy.
If you're interested in seeing an example of what I mean by extremism in Christianity, look here. (Warning: this is deeply offensive. I in no way support this horrible mentality. Watch at your own risk.)
The point here is not to highlight this all too frequent hate mongering in the faith. The point here is that if Christians who claim to be run-of-the-mill don't want to be associated with these kooks, then it is their responsibility to fight against it.

Christianity --The Church -- is called the body of Christ. Well, there's a serious malignant cancer at the core of this body. Jesus said, if the right hand offends you, cut it off. How much more offensive is this?
"Regular" Christians will tell you that this man's doctrine is a thin slice of the whole body. They will tell you that it really isn't representative of the whole belief. They will say it is the atheists fault for pointing it out.
They will claim anything but responsibility for it. And, because these are fellow believers, they will not do a thing about it.
Now, if you have the stomach for it, think back or watch the video above once more. Do you hear the child crying? What if that child is a homosexual? What if that child or others in that congregation are hiding a secret? What if they feel trapped, need love and compassion, have a need to be accepted. Isn't that what Jesus called on us to do? To love one another?
This isn't strictly about being gay in the face of this kind of hate. This is about being human and knowing that there are people in this world who will try to take that from us.
This is a call to all the moderate Christians out there. Before you try to heal the rest of the "lost" you had better work to root out the David Berzins in your body.

Falling Away

A friend posted an article about a book which addresses the reason that many young Christians are falling away as having largely to do with Youth Groups making the faith about emotions, rather than dealing with hard questions.
My knee-jerk reaction was to comment, "Too little, too late."
You can read the article here.
The article speaks about  Nancy Pearcey and her book Finding Truth.
On the surface, the article seems to mull over some very important things in the development of a good Christian. That other Christians should not fear the doubts and challenging questions of other, younger developing Christians. If we teach them not to be afraid of counter ideologies, then they will not fall away.
Instead, they claim, the pastors and teachers of the young focus on the emotional high from worship or finding a new way of life, etc.
This, from a developmental standpoint is pretty good logic. If we, say, take this concept and apply it to young lovers, it would be very good that they understand that, at some point, the feelings change, but that doesn't negate the relationship, or the commitment they made.
However, if we delve into the deeper mentality, what we find is a rather more disturbing scrabbling fear.
This is not a book about reinforcing values and changing the way the faith is taught. It is a book about the realization that the religion is failing.
Young people, according to this article are, being shown too many challenging ideologies in school and those cause the child or young person to begin to doubt the meaningfulness of their faith, in the face of all the wonder of their education, which is cast as a bad thing.
My opinion is that this is rather less about not being prepared for the challenges faced in school and rather more about the reality of indoctrination.
Young people who are raised in strict Christian upbringings are indoctrinated from the outset that their faith is a way of life. They are not encouraged to ask certain questions. They are not welcome to go beyond certain boundaries. "Trust and Obey, for there's no other way."
Children are taught that, if they don't feel or think in a certain way, they are sinning. We know what sin leads to, as that, too, is drilled in from a very young age.
When a child goes to college, and is faced with the Real World of Truth and the wonderful things that exist beyond the faith, it's no wonder they begin to see the religion for what is truly is. The dogma of control disguised as hope.

This article and the book are a fundamental, although unintended admission about the reality of the faith. Beyond a certain point, many young people no longer believe, not because they haven't been indoctrinated enough, or indoctrinated incorrectly -- on the contrary, they're quite thorough with it -- but because in this world, young people want to see as much evidence as possible. They are sick of paying lip service to a dogma and ideology that doesn't value them as individuals, but as 'followers'. And this falling away threatens and frightens people like my friend and Ms. Pearcey, not because they are worried, ultimately, about the spiritual well being of young people, but because they are afraid they will be exposed for what is really happening. Young people are becoming too savvy to believe the nonsense drilled into them any longer.
And that means, that if this next generation is no longer falling for the ruse, the previous generation risk exposure for what they really are: participants in the greatest scam ever played on humanity.

The church is failing, but not in its providence of correct teaching, but because it fails to see itself as outdated, and based on bad logic. No amount of internal criticism ( or external, for that matter) will solve this epidemic. But it will not be until young people are free to express their own reasons, that the veil will fall completely away.

Whether we see that happen in our lifetime, without the necessary rise in fever pitch of the zealous faithful, I cannot say. I only hope that young people will, in the end' not fear to call BS when they see it.

Ascension of Man

Ascension, the feast that celebrates when Jesus rose to heaven, after his resurrection, in full view of his followers is one of the more epic accounts of his life, or in this case, afterlife.
Whether or not you believe this actually happened, it is a fine analogy to something far more mundane and natural within ourselves.
While we live, we often change and grow, experiencing a sort of metamorphosis.
Like the man, we are born and raised and we grow and we are taught to believe things.
Like the man, we are challenged by the world about our beliefs. Like the man, we have to face real persecution.
And like the man, we may come to the point of spiritual death: that point where the reality and truth around us prevails over the superstitious and naive beliefs we've held.
This is very tortuous; very difficult.
Some cannot bear this loss and forever seek in the dust the ghost of their blind belief.
But some rise again.
Like the man, they have the scars of their death. But unlike the man they no longer persist in insisting that what they've formerly believed has any hold on them.
Like a butterfly freshly free of their chrysalis, they are new, slightly vulnerable and wobbly.
But soon enough the sun of truth warms them and the old ways fall away and where once there was fear and helplessness and dogma and doctrine, there is now only joy, awe and freedom.
The ascension of man comes when we realize it is worthy to let the old versions of ourselves, which clinged to the thralldom of mythology as fact, die away and we can become new in freedom from bad dogma.
Ascension of Man means we let the poisonous beliefs we held fall away, and find hope in the real, every day truths we can depend on.

Not at liberty

Someone somewhere is afraid. That fear leads them to believe that because some things are changing in America, that what they have been comfortable with is under attack.
Someone else has taken hold of that fear and tried to magnify it one hundred fold. Because where one person is scared that their ideology is under attack, there are others who feel the same. And even if they don't, they will, because it's nice to feel righteous indignation in the face of being wrong.

If I believe the the Yankees are the best ball team hands down, and someone shows me that Kansas City is 7-0 compared to the Yankees 3-5, I might get a little shaken up. I have to face the fact that I'm wrong. That's scary.

Now, I have the freedom to continue believing that the Yanks are the best team, even in face of evidence to the contrary, but this cognitive dissonance in no way exemplifies a love of truth.
It just shows denial, and fear. And those two things love the idea of being persecuted by the 'others' who see the truth for what it is. Those Royals fans are ruining baseball for Yankees fans!

No one is persecuting Christian's right to believe what they want. Just because gay marriage is taking hold across the nation, and people are becoming more aware of the outdated patriarchal ways that Christianity lends itself to -- in fact depends on -- and are tired of it, doesn't mean that Christians can no longer live the same way they always have.

What it means, however is that things are changing and Christians cannot deal with it.

That fills them with fear. They want to deny the reality. As above, fear and denial love the idea that because things are changing it means that Christians are under attack.

So, while a Christian can choose to believe that homosexuality is a sin, and that the patriarchal ways of some denominations are good and sound, even in the face of huge change, it doesn't mean that their way of life is under attack. It just means that the realization of having been duped is much harder to deal with than continuing to do things the same old way.

In this country we have the freedom to do many things, but we are not at liberty to persecute members of any faith, legally.

We are not at liberty to call you out on those issues where you are hanging on to bad dogma.

But we are at liberty to grow, change and make this world safe and habitable by all walks of life. If your faith prevents you, fine. You are not at liberty to shriek "PERSECUTION" just because you don't like what you see.

A moment of life in death.

The deeps of winter, where I live, are not so deep. Sure, it gets cold, but not so much that you have to worry about permafrost. Even still, the winter is the time that I prune trees that I've planted on our property.
Two of the trees -- a Bradford Pear and a Cleveland Pear -- have grown exponentially over the last few years, and so I've had to work extra hard to keep them at a manageable size.
I kept the 'wands' I cut with the hopes of maybe making something from them, a basket or something.
One of them, a longer one, I cut a small point on and stuck it in the ground by a pile of wood near our fire circle.
A few weeks later, I was surprised to see that there were leaves blooming on tiny branches. I showed my wife who suggested that "life wants to keep living."
I agreed and planted the wand into the good deep wet earth in our yard.
I was speaking to a friend who knows plants, and he said that, if I want the wand to develop roots, I'd need to prune the new leaves. My hope was that if I ignored the leaves, the wand would still develop roots. Nature might find a way.
As I walked out this morning to look at the thing, I felt the same affection for it that I do the others I've planted. I would be hard for me to pluck the leaves. But rationality kicked in and I knew if I wanted it to live, it was a sacrifice I'd need to make. There wouldn't be any magic involved.

Life is often like this. We want something, and we know that to get it, we have to make sacrifices. Despite this, we often delude ourselves into thinking that something or someone unseen will intervene. My hope with the tree, that it would survive either way, was not a bad hope, but it was uninformed.
I know what I'd like, and I know what will be. The choice I have to make is whether I will allow my wants to cloud the reason. Or if I will trust to the  reality of the situation and make a rational decision.

We can hope and wait on an eternal unseen presence to intervene, or we can act on what we know.
It won't always be life or death. But, realizing that we have within ourselves the power to act, even in the face of what we know is inevitable may just be for us a moment of life in death.

Divine, or Not?

There are a great many people who claim the The Bible is the Word of God. They claim that the writers thereof were divinely inspired and that even those books which were written after the death of Christ must, by this claim, be included as God's unchanging Word.
They claim that this divine inspiration makes the Bible divine, as a whole text. But does it truly make all the writers divine as well? Who decided they were inspired, and how do we define divine inspiration?

According to Dictionary.com, divine inspiration is: an act or process that is purportedly inspired by a deity; 

inspiration endowed by God upon 

spiritually gifted persons

Now, that in itself is pretty easy to understand. A person has a spiritual sensitivity and so is able to more plainly evoke what he or she believes is the nature, will or desire of God. But can we spread this same sensitivity to all of the authors of the Bible? How do we measure the 'sensitivity' of authors we know so little about? We could claim that their writings are so in common that we can assume the power of inspiration runs throughout. But the commonality of the Gospels is not so easy for us to show.

From the historical perspective, even if we simply want to hold the light of historicity to the Gospels alone, we begin to see some tears in the fabric of divinity.
Mark, the youngest of the Gospels in terms of time passed between the death of Jesus around year 30 and it's origin tells the story of a Jesus who is not seen after the resurrection, has no mention of virgin birth and makes no claims of the divinity of Jesus. Written somewhere between 60 and 70, it also has the empty tomb tale.

Paul's writings begin somewhere around 50. Which means that long before the tale of Jesus was written down by the Gospel authors, Paul had converted and had begun his ministry and letters.
Eight of the books of Paul are undeniably his work. However thirteen books that are attributed to Paul or Timothy, are not verified works. They are called, by theologians, pseudepigraphic, or 'under a false name'. If we cannot verify these authors, how can we know that they were inspired? Also, Paul never claims that Jesus was born of a virgin. And unlike Mark, there is no empty tomb. He claims Jesus was raised from the dead and appeared to him on the road to Damascus.

Matthew, having origins closer to year 80, records virgin birth and being born in Bethlehem.

Between Luke and the Acts, we can see more of the Passion, those things we are used to seeing. The last supper, appearing multiple times in the Upper Room, the ascension and the murder of his followers. Luke and Acts have origins near year 85. John, happening in year 90 talks more about the incarnation of God-as-Man, the divinity of Jesus and so on.
In every single one of these cases, from Paul, through the lowly Mark and through, we see so many different versions of Jesus, that we can tell that his many biographers were not so sure of his story as they perhaps claimed.
If there are this many differences among men who were this close to these times, how can we say that there is a truth that runs through all of them which invites us to accept infallibility of the text.

Even if we ignore the translations of the original writings, various 'gnostic' texts ascribed to Mary Magdalene and Jesus himself, we have enough of a muddled history to make even the most sane historian mad.Leaving out Paul's letters, how can you adhere to the divinity argument, if even the Gospels do not agree? Perhaps one is more accurate, historically, than others, but even in the face of all that, we cannot tell for sure, which of the four was the most accurate.
If we cannot even apply empirical historical validity to these events, and the writers don't agree or match up, how do we logically make the claim of divinity of the texts?
The next question is: do dare apply divinity to those texts which were obviously written under an assumed name? Were they written under duress? Were they published under a different name to avoid persecution? How does that hold up against the idea that martyrdom is a good thing?
Perhaps, even if Paul's epistles were inspiring works, we might disagree that they were divinely inspired. He says very different things to the different 'churches'. Pastors and theologians will chalk this up to different cultures of his audiences.
But the real question is, outside of Jesus himself (we will tackle his divinity later) can anyone in or contributing to the unfolding story of Jesus' life and ministry be considered divine?
If we apply this same incredulity of divinity to The Bible as we do to the Quran or the Kalevala or the Bhagavad Gita, we may be surprised at how poorly it holds up to historical scrutiny, not to mention questions of divine inspiration.

Even more poignant, can we call the writings of theologians and other clerics who wrote about Jesus divine too? What if they disagree with Paul or the Gospels? Clearly historical integrity among the Gospels themselves is not considered important, or, at least is glossed over. At what point do we draw the line? Only those books that were accepted at the Council of Nicea?
But it is not enough to question this book's origins in history. We must ask, do the claims made in the book to anything to add or subtract to the morality within that believers also call divine and absolute?
At what point do we willingly suspend disbelief in order to believe that which doesn't hold up against very much literary and historical scrutiny?

Note: Special thanks to Matt Barsotti at his blog Jericho Brisance and the lovely infographic there which guided my navigation of the historical origins. I take no credit for the infographic, but you may find it helpful. Find it here

Death? No. Possible Redemption.

The final verdict has been submitted and the jury found Dzhokhar Tsarnaev guilty of all 30 counts of murder in the Boston Marathon bombing. The second part of his trial will now be about whether or not he is sentenced to death.
According to a New York Times brief, the defense will try to save him by building the argument that he fell under the power of his brother, Tamerlan.
This is one of those interesting situations where my knee-jerk reaction is somewhat different from a more thoughtful and slow approach to the question of whether we should kill Dzhokhar for the horrible crimes he committed.
My knee-jerk reaction was instantly 'No.' We should not kill him, because that is exactly what he wants. His mentality about death is that it is honorable to die for what he believes. He believes that killing people, Americans, would bring him glory in the afterlife. My knee-jerk reaction was to keep him alive so that the glory he so wished for would be kept from him. That should be torturous for him metaphysically.
But, after I thought more about it, I realized that I was wrong about this approach. I do not mean to say that I think that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be sentenced to death. I abhor the death penalty. I mean that it was wrong of me to think of this from the perspective of being kept from his own joy of his afterlife.
The idea that a man could do what he did, notwithstanding, Tsarnaev is a human being. Even though we would not deign to admit it, for good reasons, he has dignity. He is alive. He is capable of thought. He can be rehabilitated -- even reconciled -- from his way of thinking.
I agree that he needs to go to prison. I agree that his sort of mental sickness is awful. But I don't agree with is that he can never be a person who can look back and say that what he did was wrong.
Religion in this situation is at the root of this young man's evil act. He did this as an act of evangelism. He wanted to gain notoriety by being a terrorist and he wanted to die to gain glory in the afterlife. That is poisoned thinking, for sure.
How often do we not get poisoned into thinking something that, in a clearer light, we would reject out of hand?
Dzhokhar is a human with some really bad problems. In time, those problems may heal. In time he may be brought to see the error of his ways. In time, he may be able to help end the situation as it is in this world, where we are not fully free until we stop believing poisoned philosophies and dogmas.
I for one wish to see no more loss of life from this terrible tragedy. I do not foresee it doing much good to take his life from him, the way he took the lives and liberties of so many others.
He is a sick person, but that sickness comes from a lifetime of indoctrination. Perhaps if Dzhokhar had been raised in a place where he was free to find his own Truth, he would have been a productive member of society.
I believe that killing him is wrong, not so that he will experience the metaphysical torture of being kept from what he believes he will receive in the afterlife, but because there is hope that he will be able to find that the afterlife he believes in is nothing compared to the redemption that may be found if he gets the help he needs.
Incarcerate him. But do not kill him.

The Discussion

A good friend of mine is a theologian. He's smart. Sharp as a razor, and very evangelical.
Recently I posted a comment about my heroes and I included Christopher Hitchens. Hitch remains one of the few voices of reason from the atheist side of the chamber. For me, it was one of many acquired tastes to get to know Hitch. I disagreed with literally everything he said.
He was offensive, boorish and English.
Not that there's anything wrong with being English, but there is an ingrown sense of fear of their use of the language.
I included on the list, Orwell, Hitch, Jesus.
My friend commented and said he did not think Hitch should be on the list.
My friend is too smart not to observe that I have deconverted. But it provided an opportunity to show the place of Judas in the Passion.
We are taught that he was bad. The worst. Yet, even with that, had not Judas sold Jesus to the Sanhedrin, would we have had a Passion?
I agree with nearly everything Hitch says, now. He's gone, but not forgotten.
Wherever he's gone, if anywhere, he helped one person divest all the bad philosophy and contradiction and hypocrisy in Christianity. Things I've found I cannot tolerate any longer.
If that means I'm a sinner, so be it. But if that means I am now free to move ahead in my search for Truth, well, Amen.
Here's to Hitch, to those who challenge the Establishment and to those who are learning to fear no longer.

A note on Coming Back

Resurrection is a funny thing. Short of being something that can only happen within a very short time of heart stoppage, we tend to think of resurrection as being strictly metaphorical.
Yesterday, billions of people all over the world celebrated the resurrection of Jesus, a mythology which puts it's weight completely on the coming back.
There are lots of mythologies out there that have magical or miraculous parts.
But this one is designed to get us to not worry about right now, and instead place our hopes on the after life, where we shall, one day, be resurrected like Jesus.
I have no taste for the torture and death of who I still believe was a great man with a hugely important message.
I have even less taste for celebrating an internal mindset that values something after death as more important than the right now.
Experts in theology often have to skirt the issue of the miraculous. They have to trump it up as the power of God or claim that we just don't know, but we'd better believe anyway, just to be sure.
In both cases, there is just one problem: it accomplishes nothing.
It's fine to celebrate the man, a thing we should do every day. But to give ourselves over to believing in nonsense which poisons our ability to live and be awake in the here-and-now, is really a frightening prospect.
Follow the teachings of the man, but eschew the fantastical things in the stories.
Focus more on how to emulate his story to fit today. Focus less on the afterlife.
Today is the day. That's the real miracle.

Fear of Death

We all have a tendency to fear the end of our own lives. Things may be rough, while we're alive, but since we don't know about what happens after we die, if anything, we're terrified by it.

This fear, no matter how irrational is something that all living creatures feel. I believe that it is, and I mean no pun here, a survival instinct. Since our desire to survive is the most powerful drive we have, it seems reasonable that we've built up death to be something that we fear and detest and dread.

This is where religion steps in.

Religions all across the spectrum deal with death in very specific ways, but most have a way to avoid death, make it less frightening or fulfill some way to lessen death.

Think of these three random examples:
Asatruism, the religion based on the Norse Mythologies, claims that if a man lives a brave and bold life, and dies in battle for something he believes in, he will be brought to Valhalla by angels called Valkyries, where he will be considered Einherjar. He will live and fight and be born again every day in Odin's battle hall for eternity.
In Christianity, a religion based mostly on Biblical scriptures, a person either goes to eternal torment in the afterlife or to Heaven to sing the praises of their Holy God, Yahweh. The deciding factor between these two is whether a person accepts Jesus Christ, the human version of Yahweh, sent as a human sacrifice to pay for the sins of mankind. If you believe in Jesus, and live by his laws, you can go to Heaven.
Buddhism, like it's earlier root of Hinduism says that if we can throw off all attachment and desire in our lives, we will be born again into another life, that is easier and this reincarnation will continue to happen until we become one with everything, called Nirvana.

In each of these three examples, there are ways that the living can have some control over their own deaths and their afterlives. And that may just be the point. It offers us a reason not to fear and goes one step farther by providing a means to change the way we live in our current lives.

While all of these religions I've mentioned are not bad, in their own right, the focus they put on death and what happens in the afterlife have profound affects on  their specific individualities in life. So, while a Viking who believes in Valhalla may have little fear of death, because of what he believes will happen in life, he very well may throw his life away in some vain attempt to die in battle. Asatru, in it's classic formal belief system, valued this kind of rash behavior.
In Buddhism, those who follow this religion or philosophy look forward to being one with everything.
And finally, in Christianity, once we add the rule that we must convert others to the same belief system, we are focused on not going to Hell and going to Heaven instead.

What each of these fail to do, however is help us have a healthy understanding that death is natural, normal and actually, in some cases, not a bad thing at all. But we have to look at things differently. We cannot be rash and throw away our lives erratically, but we also must understand that it is going to happen.

To me, that means we need to be smart about how we live every day, to both lengthen our lives and to get as much out of it as possible. To be coerced 'at the gunpoint of Hell' to live a certain way, is one of the best cons ever played on humanity. Since we are not focused on doing good or being moral for the sake of being good and moral and instead out of fear, we actually become even more selfish and shallow.

But a rational and healthy understanding of death, and the fact that we really don't have any knowledge of what's after death regardless of the claims of religions, helps us to be more willing and able to live a full, moral life without irrational or undue fears of the afterlife.

The freedom that this provides in daily living can mean the difference between a negative and unhealthy personal philosophy and a positive and compassionate one.