One thing that has always stood out to me as long as I can remember is:
Why do fallible humans ALWAYS have to enforce God's laws and will?
The Bible says, God will do this; the Quran says, Allah will do that; The Torah says God will do the Other; ... if you think or act out certain behaviors ... they are ALL specific that GOD will do these thing and that God will hold judgement and mete out "punishment(s)".
Yet ... we never seem to see an instance of God doing the meting or judging - it's ALWAYS the humans!
If someone takes the lord's name in vane or says something derogatory against the church or religion, faithful HUMANS feel compelled to lash out and "defend" their god/religion. Going back to when I was a young child, this ALWAYS struck me as strange - Why would humans need to risk life, limb and liberty to fight or defend the biggest baddest most capable-est deity/entity in the universe?!? I could never wrap my mind around how the logic plays. God could strike down anyone who angered him (or so the bible tells) yet I am supposed to punch little Johnny in the mouth for saying Jesus was a putz?!? Even as a believing child, when faced with such conundrums, I'd merely say something to the effect of "God will get you for that" but even as a very young believer I never felt compelled to take an action other than to pass on the rule of god and "maybe" stop interacting with someone of differing beliefs.
Of course today I realize, there is no god(s) and know that insulting any deity will not be met with a supernatural sanction (or lightning bolt) ... nor will there be any final judgement AFTER death - unless it's at the eulogy of the deceased offender.
Why does this come to mind now? Because recently I've become aware of the most vile threats that the religious folks (usually the most ardent - not so much the casual) throw at ANYone who even utters the most mundane contradiction to their religion. The slightest things cause the fervently religious to have a scorched earth policy on anything that "might" even be remotely viewed as contrary to their god/religion. Example: ISIS blowing up archaeological sites ... because, you know, old bricks and pottery shards could ... excuse me ... what can they do to your god again? Exactly how weak and fragile is your god that looking at old bricks will cause your god irreparable harm?
I was always taught that god, creator of the heavens and Earth, father of all humanity, was beyond reproach and untouchable when it came to the puny, feeble antics of non-believing humans. And I am equally sure that god didn't "tell" you to act on his behalf because he really has no time or energy to worry about who called his son a putz and/or anything else of this earth - I mean, for fuck's sake - he has a LAKE OF FIRE to roast people for eternity in when he judges them, right?!? Not good enough for his human minions though, evidently. Nope, THEY (the humans) feel a NEED to act on god's behalf and exact worldly retribution ... and the reason is clear ... even THEY don't trust god to do it ... because they REALLY know he is not there ... now or ever :P
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Lessons in "Marriage"
mar·riage
ˈmerij/
noun
- the legally or formally recognized union of adult human partners in a relationship
- a combination or mixture of two or more elements
Ok ... so there's your working definition of what "marriage is - it's a union, mixture or combination of things - pretty easy concept to grasp.
Now, lets look at the players (as pertains to the United States) in the same sex marriage debate and what their roles and limitations are:
Government (all) - the US government is governed by the constitution which forbids it from participating in or takings sides/positions regarding religion. Provides services and secular leadership to the citizenry it represents.
Religion (all) - spiritual guidance to their parishioners/flocks and provide services in as it pertains to the word of their specific god. Cannot participate directly in government matters - i.e. cannot make binding laws; cannot campaign for or endorse political candidates for government - at least not directly as the entity known as "the church" (supplement synagogue or mosque or whatever religious jargon - for simplicity the word "church will be used throughout to represent all religious organizations) .
So we have two VERY different bodies (church and state) that perform to VERY different services but use the EXACT same word to describe that service:
Marriage
And it applies as defined appropriately very well.
Now - here's where people make the mistake - they cannot separate the two very different services provided but these very different groups in their minds because both services are usually COMBINED and executed at the same general time.
But they ARE separate actions!
Make no mistake - a "marriage" as a religious act is NOT legally binding withing the government context. Conversely, a "marriage" in the civil/government context is NOT sanctioned or binding in the eyes of god or the church.
Just TRY to go to your local church and have the pastor marry you in the eyes of god and not file the applications/paperwork for the government version of "marriage". See if you can exercise the legal rights that are granted by the government's"marriage" (spoiler: you won't be able to unless you lie through your teeth).
Now, you "may" be able to have your civil/government "marriage" recognized by a church that you chose to join after the actual government (or other church/denomination) marriage was executed but I suspect more often than not, a civilly married couple MUST have their union sanctioned by the church they choose to attend even if they have been married for decades - as an example I will quote from americancatholic.org
Catholics who exchange marriage vows in the presence of only ministers from other religious traditions or authorized civic officials are not considered validly married in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
(emphasis added - so much for "we all worship the same god" - if that were so, a sanction from one church would be recognized by all churches :P )
So to summarize what we've learned:
Marriage has TWO separate forms and functions:
Civil Marriage - legal and binding in the eyes of the government and generally accepted norm of society
Religious Marriage - spiritual and binding in the eyes god and church
Why is this important?
Because anyone who wants the legal protections and benefits of the legal institution known as "marriage" MUST have a civil union (marriage) applied for, accepted, approved and performed and filed with the government. But (and this is an important distinction) a civil government sanctioned and recognized as legal marriage is NOT - repeat NOT REQUIRED - or even expected to have any religious sanction or approval!
Now - the REAL crux of the issue facing American society today - same sex marriage.
Dun ... Dun ... DAAAAAAAAAH
(Cue the outraged homophobes)
"Awww HELL no!!! - can't let no QUEERS be all married and shit - it'd be the ruination of the 'mur'can way of life!!! That shit is just unnatural in the eyes of the one true almighty GAWD!!! My BuyBull TELLS me so!!! Ain't a gonna let no ..."
(cut away from outraged homophobes)
As distasteful as it is - religions have the RIGHT to define and execute and sanction RELIGIOUS marriage anyway their scriptures dictate they must.
HOWEVER (and THIS is MOST important):
The Government is NOT in the "religion" business, nor can it adopt any one religion or religious rites and or rituals. The government can and should now and always execute unbiased marriages that are "legally or formally recognized unions" to any and all persons who qualify as competent and who apply to execute this legal instrument known and defined as CIVIL (government) marriage.
I know that the two DIFFERENT forms of marriage are very often performed and executed at the same time but it's high time we put on our big boy/girl pants and recognize that one word can mean TWO different things:
 |
| No one questions that "crane" conjures two VERY different images |
For the record - I am neither gay nor religious (no viable evidence for supernatural beings - without this evidence, religions fail) but I am fair and empathetic so I believe all people should have the same rights and opportunities and it is no one's business or right to dictate love/commitment between consenting competent adult humans.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Theological Arms Race?
So, I was reading a post over on Doug's Dribblings and something popped into my head as I read the following sentence:
It seems that after a pretty good run, the polytheistic religions started to lose favor and followers as new religions with more streamlined customer support were implemented. Certain tribes - perhaps simply because they were excluded from participating in specific religions due to race, status, nationality etc. - may have simply developed their own version of the best gods from the polytheistic religions and tailored their new god's requirements to their own customs and means.
And of you're going to tailor make a god, you may as well dress it up to the nines and give it powers that surpass that of your oppressors gods, right? In a world during a time when human knowledge of the natural world was rudimentary, gods "just had" to be the source and cause for things like earthquakes, lighting, shooting stars, diseases etc. And why have many gods that handle individual issues when you can make one that handles multiple issues ... and if this god were powerful enough to take on all these takes ... maybe they could use that "power" to intimidate foes in other tribes/lands.
Much like how weapons began their development, so too did these theologies/religions morph into more refined, more powerful more all encompassing dogmas. As the generations tick by, each new generation refined, detailed and perfected their religion ... just like how the world went from mortars to conventional bombs and ultimately to the A-bomb and then to ICBMs delivering multiple warheads.
Back then, there was no such awesome man made power - but there were existing religions, but they didn't quite fit everyone's needs so some made new gods/religions to fill those needs ... they changed the structure ... instead of one problem, one god ... why not one god, many problems addressed - provided you yous the proper rite, incantation, prayer etc. to invoke your god to help ... a real one size fits all deal that is easier to deal with because it's streamlined and efficient and you can go to one temple to do your theological laundry ... a real on stop shop.
It's no small wonder it caught on. And since you didn't have to spread your wealth around to many gods/temples, you'd have more resources available to conquer your enemies and slaughter and subjugate them like they had once done to you. So the religions with the most efficient "requirements" that allowed to to pay your respects, make your offerings and get down to the taks of slaughtering foes with the least daily interruptions were are the religions that ultimately became what we have today in the world.
The only difference is, now we really don't even need them because we have a real good grasp on how the natural world works ... so either some religions will reinvent themselves (notice how Pope Francis is changing doctrine to fit the demands of modern world) ... and some will just eventually dwindle and wither down to obscure, archaic footnotes to history ... just like muzzle loading muskets.
So yeah, I think religions started as a way to explain the (then) unexplained (which we, of course, now know) and morphed into a "My god(s) is/are bigger and more powerful than your god(s) ... just like an arms race ... and who wants to cross the biggest most powerfulestest deity?
Bring on the "arms" reduction treaties ... and soon, please
... I also have a dislike for the idea of "chosen" people. Fatalism and predestination in the divine scheme of things just don't appeal to me at all ...It occurred to me that many religious/theologic constructs tend to proclaim in some form or fashion that those who have complete faith and give total buy in to a particular religion will gain favor and blessing from eternal bliss in heaven to 72 virgins (I don't think it's specified as to which gender said virgins possess so ... ) and so on et. al. Anyway, I got to thinking that earlier religions had an ever growing cadre of task specific gods that handled particular issues and as more issues arose, more gods were created to address them ... I can see how such a convoluted and unwieldy org chart of deities could rapidly become confusing not to mention expensive in the form of proper offerings to curry favor with the specific god that handled your specific needs at a give time.
It seems that after a pretty good run, the polytheistic religions started to lose favor and followers as new religions with more streamlined customer support were implemented. Certain tribes - perhaps simply because they were excluded from participating in specific religions due to race, status, nationality etc. - may have simply developed their own version of the best gods from the polytheistic religions and tailored their new god's requirements to their own customs and means.
And of you're going to tailor make a god, you may as well dress it up to the nines and give it powers that surpass that of your oppressors gods, right? In a world during a time when human knowledge of the natural world was rudimentary, gods "just had" to be the source and cause for things like earthquakes, lighting, shooting stars, diseases etc. And why have many gods that handle individual issues when you can make one that handles multiple issues ... and if this god were powerful enough to take on all these takes ... maybe they could use that "power" to intimidate foes in other tribes/lands.
Much like how weapons began their development, so too did these theologies/religions morph into more refined, more powerful more all encompassing dogmas. As the generations tick by, each new generation refined, detailed and perfected their religion ... just like how the world went from mortars to conventional bombs and ultimately to the A-bomb and then to ICBMs delivering multiple warheads.
Back then, there was no such awesome man made power - but there were existing religions, but they didn't quite fit everyone's needs so some made new gods/religions to fill those needs ... they changed the structure ... instead of one problem, one god ... why not one god, many problems addressed - provided you yous the proper rite, incantation, prayer etc. to invoke your god to help ... a real one size fits all deal that is easier to deal with because it's streamlined and efficient and you can go to one temple to do your theological laundry ... a real on stop shop.
It's no small wonder it caught on. And since you didn't have to spread your wealth around to many gods/temples, you'd have more resources available to conquer your enemies and slaughter and subjugate them like they had once done to you. So the religions with the most efficient "requirements" that allowed to to pay your respects, make your offerings and get down to the taks of slaughtering foes with the least daily interruptions were are the religions that ultimately became what we have today in the world.
The only difference is, now we really don't even need them because we have a real good grasp on how the natural world works ... so either some religions will reinvent themselves (notice how Pope Francis is changing doctrine to fit the demands of modern world) ... and some will just eventually dwindle and wither down to obscure, archaic footnotes to history ... just like muzzle loading muskets.
So yeah, I think religions started as a way to explain the (then) unexplained (which we, of course, now know) and morphed into a "My god(s) is/are bigger and more powerful than your god(s) ... just like an arms race ... and who wants to cross the biggest most powerfulestest deity?
Bring on the "arms" reduction treaties ... and soon, please
Saturday, November 15, 2014
War on Christianity?!? Really?
Okay ... granted ... a lot of atheists, agnostics, secularists and constitutionalists want to remove "under god" from the Pledge and take "In God we trust" off the money in favor of "E Pluribus Unum" ... But lets be honest - that's NOT a "war" or even an "attack" ... not even an "affront to sensibilities" (unless those sensibilities are exceptionally sensitive) ... it's really just constitutional common sense that removes the appearance of the government showing any preference of one religion over another or discriminating against no religion at all as the constitution demands.
A "war" is when the government (or mob) forces you to move your church(s) outside the city limits ... but despite the perceived "war", every Sunday, 80,000 people can gleefully sing "God Bless America" in ball parks without fear of reprisal or sanction - and this would STILL be fine and free to do without "under god" in the Pledge. Additionally, every church would STILL be right where it always was and open for "business" just like before ...Now what kind of "war" fails to address the obvious targets - churches and huge gatherings of people loudly singing about God and Country?
None
Nada
Zip
Zero
Zilch
No "war" known to human kind would go out of it's way to AVOID the obvious targets. I mean, really ... what the F*ck? Either this "war" is being executed by the most inept and incompetent folks ever to perpetrate a "war" on anything ever ... or ... it's not a "war" ... and never was. (Hint: It's not a "war" on anything)
You see, when this "war" is over - people will still be able to:
A "war" is when the government (or mob) forces you to move your church(s) outside the city limits ... but despite the perceived "war", every Sunday, 80,000 people can gleefully sing "God Bless America" in ball parks without fear of reprisal or sanction - and this would STILL be fine and free to do without "under god" in the Pledge. Additionally, every church would STILL be right where it always was and open for "business" just like before ...Now what kind of "war" fails to address the obvious targets - churches and huge gatherings of people loudly singing about God and Country?
None
Nada
Zip
Zero
Zilch
No "war" known to human kind would go out of it's way to AVOID the obvious targets. I mean, really ... what the F*ck? Either this "war" is being executed by the most inept and incompetent folks ever to perpetrate a "war" on anything ever ... or ... it's not a "war" ... and never was. (Hint: It's not a "war" on anything)
You see, when this "war" is over - people will still be able to:
- Have a church
- Go to Church (not that the majority of those railing about this horrific "war" actually GO to church but I "get that they like to know they "can" go if they ever were to choose to do so)
- Pray
- Carry the Bible in public
- SELL the Bible openly in (gasp) public bookstores
- Read the Bible
- ... you get the idea - there isn't much that would "change" after this "war" has been "fought"
In short, the only changes - as per the constitution - are that the government (who bears the burden of restriction from religion - not the people or religious organizations) won't and shouldn't be able to invoke the word or ideas of any one "god" or religion.
See, then the government uses a term like "god", it excludes other forms of deities that - in this FREE nation - we can choose to worship ... and THAT excludes AMERICANS from feeling fairly treated and represented - YES there are a large number of AMERICANS - born and raised here that don't worship YOUR god du jour ... and THAT is "suppose" to be okay - see, we're supposed to have freedom to do that.
So, for the same exact reason that you, my good christian, find the prospects of saying:
One Nation, Under Buddha
See, then the government uses a term like "god", it excludes other forms of deities that - in this FREE nation - we can choose to worship ... and THAT excludes AMERICANS from feeling fairly treated and represented - YES there are a large number of AMERICANS - born and raised here that don't worship YOUR god du jour ... and THAT is "suppose" to be okay - see, we're supposed to have freedom to do that.
So, for the same exact reason that you, my good christian, find the prospects of saying:
One Nation, Under Buddha
One Nation, Under Vishnu
One Nation, Under Ra
One Nation, Under Thor
One Nation, Under Thor
One Nation, Under Allah
One Nation, Under Zeus
One Nation, Under Baal
One Nation, Under El
One Nation, Under Baal
One Nation, Under El
etc. et. al.
Or even perhaps:
One Nation, Under Yahweh
One Nation, Under Jesus
One Nation, Under Jehovah
If you find these very narrow and specific statements preposterous, limiting, narrow, exclusive, divisive etc. congratulations - you now understand why "One Nation, Under god" just does NOT work for a government agency to set in stone WHICH god.
More importantly, am I, and others of similar mind, any less American for not believing in any of these gods at all ... the only difference between you and I is - I (we) don't believe in your god either ... it's just one small step from where you are to where we are.
History has documented 2870 gods/deities that fit the following definition:
"According to The English Dictionary, god is defined as, "a supernatural being, who is worshiped as the controller of some part of the universe, some aspect of life, or is the personification of some force." Included in this definition are all deities, goddesses and supernatural beings. "
"According to The English Dictionary, god is defined as, "a supernatural being, who is worshiped as the controller of some part of the universe, some aspect of life, or is the personification of some force." Included in this definition are all deities, goddesses and supernatural beings. "
The vast majority of US citizens dismiss 2869 of those gods out of hand without losing a minute's sleep worrying if they "might" be wrong ... it would seem the odds may not be in your favor on this point. But you only dismiss all the others because you where taught to do so from birth. It was not some great "revelation" that you had - the idea was seeded in you by humans and by society at large as you grew up.
None the less - no one is asking you to disbelieve and no one is at "war" with you. We only want American government to live up to it's Constitutional mandate - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."
None the less - no one is asking you to disbelieve and no one is at "war" with you. We only want American government to live up to it's Constitutional mandate - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."
By choosing which god to name in the Pledge and place on the money, the government is establishing a preferred god and religion over all others - this is illegal and should be removed.
Besides - if your faith in your god is really so strong - do you really need your dollar bills to remind you?!? ... I question your commitment to your god if you do.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Purging Old/Outdated/Unsupported Beliefs
I follow another blogger - Gary - (http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/) and as I understand he was pretty close to a fundamental believer - or orthodox, if there is any real difference - which I imagine to followers/believers of a faith know as "orthodox" would probably take it as an insult that I equate the two beliefs as virtually synonymous. I'm sure there are differences - but to me, an outsider from all aspects even when i held beliefs in a deity, I don't see too much "wiggle room" between the fundamental and orthodox dogmas. I just don't - when I held belief, I found them equally harsh, strict and overbearing ... inflexibly rigid and unyielding to any other viewpoints or concepts/interpretations. So as a non-believer - well ... they are still as I stated.
So I found it quirky that an orthodox believer would call another former orthodox believer a "fundamentalist" as an ad hominim attack. There's quite the smack down going on over at Gary's blog. And Gary is holding strong to his new found non-belief.
See, Gary states on his blog that his blog is a form of therapy and though he is trying to spread his new found truth, he is also going through the process of purging all the insidious religious mumbo jumbo that was instilled into his mind and life while double checking which parts are based on fact and which are based on fantasy/religion. I know this very feeling - the need to re-verify the very things we used as a foundation for our entire lives. We need to relearn and re-justify EVERYTHING. So it somewhat angers me when his readers (many of them still orthodox/fundamental believers) attack his very person - what's worse is they use his very former orthodox/fundamentalism against him.
So it was okay for him to be a orthodox/fundamentalist as long as he believed, but now that he has lost his faith and no longer believes, his orthodox/fundamentalism is now a detriment!?!?
Well isn't THAT a dandy?!?
Or would that be the pot calling the kettle "Black"?
Point is - this religion stuff is rooted deep and it hides deep deep inside us. It's been molded into our very core foundation since birth for most of us - overtly and covertly. Sometimes with the express purpose to get and keep us on the god team and other times in very subtle, imperceptible ways - such as with our money and our (US) pledge of allegiance.
I generally "came out" as an atheist a couple years ago - it was a very slow very gradual process of the balance of evidence being recognized to show that the world and uni/multiverse are a natural process that has no hint of divine assistance to being what it is. But what really strikes me is all the little tidbits that are instilled in most people - even those who never proclaimed faith in any religion/deity - with a constant, consistent and relentless barrage.
These little bits must constantly be identified, assessed, verified and justified and if found to be based on theology rejected ... or new secular supporting evidence must be found to ground these items on logic, fact and rationale. But it's not as easy as all that - because each bit has other bits built on top of them ... and like a game of Jenga - the whole shebang could come crashing down when you pull out the now unsupported and unsubstantiated bit.
I often find myself in the middle of a conversation and just as I say something I realize that "oops" there's a bit that is founded and based on religion - it has a tendency to derail my point right there on the spot. This is hard stuff! It's no wonder many people - wittingly or not - just give complete buy in to their theology to avoid the headache and hassle. But in reality - it's completely dishonest to one's self to simply say "god did it".
As I watch and read Gary's progression - I can see often where he really wishes the veil had never been removed to reveal the truth about religion - and it's clear why so many don't want to face the hassle. I don't recall the specific moment when Gary was on Bruce Gerencser's (a former baptist preacher turned atheist) blog and had that "AHA" moment (or if it was even through dialogue on that blog) ... you see, I first saw Gary there debating FOR theology ... and then the light bulb went on and the right question finally forced him to question the house of cards of his theology that his life was built on. From there it's been a difficult road of revealing and relearning everything - it's that kick in the groin a kid gets when he learns his parents are really Santa Claus - that heavy can't breathe feeling.
It's hard work to get at the truth and rooting out the falsehoods - it's important to let people do so in a way that helps them come to an understanding with the (provisional) truth of the uni/multiverse. Although I was never indoctrinated to the level of Gary or the multitude of others, this is a hard, long laborious and time consuming venture - but the journey is worth it. An although not all questions are answered, it's kind of cool to be able to say "I don't know" with confidence that one day a real and plausible NATURAL answer will be found without the need to resort to the dark mystique of supernatural magic and the whims of "unknowable" deities.
So I found it quirky that an orthodox believer would call another former orthodox believer a "fundamentalist" as an ad hominim attack. There's quite the smack down going on over at Gary's blog. And Gary is holding strong to his new found non-belief.
See, Gary states on his blog that his blog is a form of therapy and though he is trying to spread his new found truth, he is also going through the process of purging all the insidious religious mumbo jumbo that was instilled into his mind and life while double checking which parts are based on fact and which are based on fantasy/religion. I know this very feeling - the need to re-verify the very things we used as a foundation for our entire lives. We need to relearn and re-justify EVERYTHING. So it somewhat angers me when his readers (many of them still orthodox/fundamental believers) attack his very person - what's worse is they use his very former orthodox/fundamentalism against him.
So it was okay for him to be a orthodox/fundamentalist as long as he believed, but now that he has lost his faith and no longer believes, his orthodox/fundamentalism is now a detriment!?!?
Well isn't THAT a dandy?!?
Or would that be the pot calling the kettle "Black"?
Point is - this religion stuff is rooted deep and it hides deep deep inside us. It's been molded into our very core foundation since birth for most of us - overtly and covertly. Sometimes with the express purpose to get and keep us on the god team and other times in very subtle, imperceptible ways - such as with our money and our (US) pledge of allegiance.
I generally "came out" as an atheist a couple years ago - it was a very slow very gradual process of the balance of evidence being recognized to show that the world and uni/multiverse are a natural process that has no hint of divine assistance to being what it is. But what really strikes me is all the little tidbits that are instilled in most people - even those who never proclaimed faith in any religion/deity - with a constant, consistent and relentless barrage.
These little bits must constantly be identified, assessed, verified and justified and if found to be based on theology rejected ... or new secular supporting evidence must be found to ground these items on logic, fact and rationale. But it's not as easy as all that - because each bit has other bits built on top of them ... and like a game of Jenga - the whole shebang could come crashing down when you pull out the now unsupported and unsubstantiated bit.
I often find myself in the middle of a conversation and just as I say something I realize that "oops" there's a bit that is founded and based on religion - it has a tendency to derail my point right there on the spot. This is hard stuff! It's no wonder many people - wittingly or not - just give complete buy in to their theology to avoid the headache and hassle. But in reality - it's completely dishonest to one's self to simply say "god did it".
As I watch and read Gary's progression - I can see often where he really wishes the veil had never been removed to reveal the truth about religion - and it's clear why so many don't want to face the hassle. I don't recall the specific moment when Gary was on Bruce Gerencser's (a former baptist preacher turned atheist) blog and had that "AHA" moment (or if it was even through dialogue on that blog) ... you see, I first saw Gary there debating FOR theology ... and then the light bulb went on and the right question finally forced him to question the house of cards of his theology that his life was built on. From there it's been a difficult road of revealing and relearning everything - it's that kick in the groin a kid gets when he learns his parents are really Santa Claus - that heavy can't breathe feeling.
It's hard work to get at the truth and rooting out the falsehoods - it's important to let people do so in a way that helps them come to an understanding with the (provisional) truth of the uni/multiverse. Although I was never indoctrinated to the level of Gary or the multitude of others, this is a hard, long laborious and time consuming venture - but the journey is worth it. An although not all questions are answered, it's kind of cool to be able to say "I don't know" with confidence that one day a real and plausible NATURAL answer will be found without the need to resort to the dark mystique of supernatural magic and the whims of "unknowable" deities.
Friday, August 29, 2014
Progress of a sort ...
So I was debating if I should post my latest FB "status" as a blog post since it veers sharply from the limited content topics I led off my blog with ... but ... screw it ... it's my blog right? And to me, this was a Big F&cking Deal™ ... and since dogs and rescue are a big part of who I am ... I share ... because I can.
With that, let me spin a yarn ...
This is Zee ...
I got him (along with his pal Riley) waay back in March 2012 as foster dogs for/from Underdog Rescue of Florida - Zee and Riley were confiscated from a hoarder in the Orlando area and were considered unadoptable due to extreme fearfulness and lack of trust in all things human. Basically Zee was as close to feral as I'd ever seen - Riley, for all his distrust was still at least social to some degree. But not Zee, He'd have been just fine running the streets/woods without ever interacting with another human for the rest of his life. But, that was not an option - so my "job" was to attempt to "train" him to be something society would recognize as a domesticated dog.
This was a loooong, hard, mind blistering task. You see, Zee is smart. He's an escape artist. I can't tell you how many times I was gripped with fear and worry after he'd figured out yet another great escape ... but he always came back (and so you don't worry where this story is going - he's here and he's safe and fine). But like any wild distrustful animal, although he might coexist in the same space as humans he kept his distance from them (me). While every other dog I had would sit in bed with me ... Zee was more comfortable UNDER my bed - safe, close but separate.
I could go on at great length (as if I haven't prattled on enough already, right?) as to all the trials and tribulations Zee and I went through over 2.5 yrs "together" ... and my former roommate,and my girlfriend could collaborate and write a 3 volume book series titled "Mind Boggling Frustration and Annoyance at the paws of one small dog named Zee". I think Lenny would have bought and cooked me steak dinners for a month if I would have sent this damn dog back to the rescue. But like a dumb ass I persevered since I had made the commitment.
Now - ask any dog trainer how they train a dog and they'll tell you - positive reinforcement with food/treats. Everyone will tell you this and what most people would rightly take as an absolute fact. And what dog WON'T accept food?!? Well ...
Zee
For 2.5 years - Zee would not take even the most salivating offerings of food from my hand ... for at least a year or more, he wouldn't even take the food in the SAME ROOM as a human. Slowly I built the trust to the point were I could set food on his paw but I still had to step back before he'd consume it.
Well, that changed last night - with the exception of ONE single solitary time in 2.5 years - Zee FINALLY and regularly, took food out of my hand (after first inspecting a piece unattached to a human) ... it was slow roasted chicken. After his inspection and consumption of the first bit laid on his paw, all the rest, he reached out and took directly from my hand AND Linda's hand too!!!
Zee is now a domesticated dog
But he still barks his fool head off semi randomly GRRR
This is Zee and Riley - Riley has always been more accepting of human contact ... but as you can see from his round body - food is his kryptonite
Epilogue - My GF and I permanently adopted these two a few months ago - although they've made HUGE strides to becoming like "regular dogs" we felt any change regarding the humans in their lives would be a major blow to their confidence and trust and they would regress and potentially run away or worse. Problem solved - they're staying. <3
With that, let me spin a yarn ...
This is Zee ...
I got him (along with his pal Riley) waay back in March 2012 as foster dogs for/from Underdog Rescue of Florida - Zee and Riley were confiscated from a hoarder in the Orlando area and were considered unadoptable due to extreme fearfulness and lack of trust in all things human. Basically Zee was as close to feral as I'd ever seen - Riley, for all his distrust was still at least social to some degree. But not Zee, He'd have been just fine running the streets/woods without ever interacting with another human for the rest of his life. But, that was not an option - so my "job" was to attempt to "train" him to be something society would recognize as a domesticated dog.
This was a loooong, hard, mind blistering task. You see, Zee is smart. He's an escape artist. I can't tell you how many times I was gripped with fear and worry after he'd figured out yet another great escape ... but he always came back (and so you don't worry where this story is going - he's here and he's safe and fine). But like any wild distrustful animal, although he might coexist in the same space as humans he kept his distance from them (me). While every other dog I had would sit in bed with me ... Zee was more comfortable UNDER my bed - safe, close but separate.
I could go on at great length (as if I haven't prattled on enough already, right?) as to all the trials and tribulations Zee and I went through over 2.5 yrs "together" ... and my former roommate,and my girlfriend could collaborate and write a 3 volume book series titled "Mind Boggling Frustration and Annoyance at the paws of one small dog named Zee". I think Lenny would have bought and cooked me steak dinners for a month if I would have sent this damn dog back to the rescue. But like a dumb ass I persevered since I had made the commitment.
Now - ask any dog trainer how they train a dog and they'll tell you - positive reinforcement with food/treats. Everyone will tell you this and what most people would rightly take as an absolute fact. And what dog WON'T accept food?!? Well ...
Zee
For 2.5 years - Zee would not take even the most salivating offerings of food from my hand ... for at least a year or more, he wouldn't even take the food in the SAME ROOM as a human. Slowly I built the trust to the point were I could set food on his paw but I still had to step back before he'd consume it.
Well, that changed last night - with the exception of ONE single solitary time in 2.5 years - Zee FINALLY and regularly, took food out of my hand (after first inspecting a piece unattached to a human) ... it was slow roasted chicken. After his inspection and consumption of the first bit laid on his paw, all the rest, he reached out and took directly from my hand AND Linda's hand too!!!
Zee is now a domesticated dog
But he still barks his fool head off semi randomly GRRR
Zee & Riley
This is Zee and Riley - Riley has always been more accepting of human contact ... but as you can see from his round body - food is his kryptonite
Epilogue - My GF and I permanently adopted these two a few months ago - although they've made HUGE strides to becoming like "regular dogs" we felt any change regarding the humans in their lives would be a major blow to their confidence and trust and they would regress and potentially run away or worse. Problem solved - they're staying. <3
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
James Foley, photojournalist - beheaded ...
... in the name of god ... in this case allah (at least one version of allah).
Yet hundreds, thousands and maybe millions prayed to their god to save him - mostly christians praying to the christian god to deliver this dedicated, brave young professional from the hands of his captors.
But aren't they arguably the same god - including the god of the hebrews?!?
One version of god is claimed to have ordered/demanded the head of this man (as interpreted by the men of ISIL) and another version of god did not see any benefit in sparing him.
How is it that anyone can see a "just" god acting in any capacity in this or any other situation? And if there is, which one is the "one true god"? Or are there many gods that are competing for top spot? Or is one a false god - satan - acting in a capacity of god to delude and mislead his "followers" down a path of conflict, death and suffering.
What do you tell people who believe in a merciful, all loving, just god as to why he didn't lift a finger - hear their prayers. What do you tell people who believe in a version of allah that claim their god would NEVER want such a thing to happen? I can assure you, many of them prayed for this NOT to happen as well - maybe even some of the captors, themselves, prayed to the god/allah to reconsider such a heinous, sinister, senseless murder.
Where was god?
The ONLY answer that makes ANY sense that fits every single aspect and angle of this situation is - there is no god, no allah, no yahweh ... none, nada, nil ... never has been ... including satan. It's all a fiction and MEN are responsible 100% for this murder. Men use the concept of a supernatural being to shirk their responsibility for their inhuman behavior. And those men, women and children that pray and worship the version of god that would NOT be "okay" with this vile murder will unanimously give god an excuse of not lifting a finger to stay the hand of the murderer(s) ... and they will go to church on sunday and pray that god will prevent the other hostages (Steven Sotloff et. al.) from meeting the same fate but other than that, they will merrily accept that their god "works in mysterious ways" that they simply cannot comprehend.
I'm sorry, but that's JUST not good enough for a deity - any deity - that is supposed to know see and hear everything and be the creator of the world/universe. It really isn't. Time to wake up and recognize who is at fault in all this - humans - we made the gods, we act on the "command" of these gods ... which is really just our own voice/thoughts under a different "name" ... so it's us - humanity - who has the blood on it's hands.
Time to wash it off and be done with it.
Yet hundreds, thousands and maybe millions prayed to their god to save him - mostly christians praying to the christian god to deliver this dedicated, brave young professional from the hands of his captors.
But aren't they arguably the same god - including the god of the hebrews?!?
One version of god is claimed to have ordered/demanded the head of this man (as interpreted by the men of ISIL) and another version of god did not see any benefit in sparing him.
How is it that anyone can see a "just" god acting in any capacity in this or any other situation? And if there is, which one is the "one true god"? Or are there many gods that are competing for top spot? Or is one a false god - satan - acting in a capacity of god to delude and mislead his "followers" down a path of conflict, death and suffering.
What do you tell people who believe in a merciful, all loving, just god as to why he didn't lift a finger - hear their prayers. What do you tell people who believe in a version of allah that claim their god would NEVER want such a thing to happen? I can assure you, many of them prayed for this NOT to happen as well - maybe even some of the captors, themselves, prayed to the god/allah to reconsider such a heinous, sinister, senseless murder.
Where was god?
The ONLY answer that makes ANY sense that fits every single aspect and angle of this situation is - there is no god, no allah, no yahweh ... none, nada, nil ... never has been ... including satan. It's all a fiction and MEN are responsible 100% for this murder. Men use the concept of a supernatural being to shirk their responsibility for their inhuman behavior. And those men, women and children that pray and worship the version of god that would NOT be "okay" with this vile murder will unanimously give god an excuse of not lifting a finger to stay the hand of the murderer(s) ... and they will go to church on sunday and pray that god will prevent the other hostages (Steven Sotloff et. al.) from meeting the same fate but other than that, they will merrily accept that their god "works in mysterious ways" that they simply cannot comprehend.
I'm sorry, but that's JUST not good enough for a deity - any deity - that is supposed to know see and hear everything and be the creator of the world/universe. It really isn't. Time to wake up and recognize who is at fault in all this - humans - we made the gods, we act on the "command" of these gods ... which is really just our own voice/thoughts under a different "name" ... so it's us - humanity - who has the blood on it's hands.
Time to wash it off and be done with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)