I think I have illustrated my intentions as your god, more or less; there are a few things I would like to get clear before I outline the rest of my idiom. The creative instigator of the universe is beyond our understanding, the conflicting messages in the ‘holy’ books continue to cause pain, war and chaotic misdirection. I am of the opinion that you should look at them collectively, for they are all, the ‘word of God’, they clearly confirm the hypothesis ‘man cannot know the mind of god’.
What we are reading in holy literature is;
“The reading of all good books is indeed like a conversation with the noblest men of past centuries who were the authors of them, nay a carefully studied conversation, in which they reveal to us none but the best of their thoughts.” Rene Descartes.
Parables and lessons for future generations are contained within our holy books, with, or without, the existence of a Creator. I think logically, if they reveal ‘none but the best of their thought’s’, then the problem is one of interpretation. Man cannot know the mind of man, let alone the mind of God. The faiths are increasingly inadequate at explaining our place in the universe and because science hasn’t had the run of religion, science cannot explain either, yet. Anything else is just fantasy. See that’s science in opposition to faith, for Yoda’s sake you can use one to define the other. Science asks ‘why?’ that’s all it does. In opposition, religion answers ‘have faith’.
We must put faith in God, or even God itself, to one side for a moment and try to establish the real truth of our existence. That is probably the main ‘thrust’ of any flippancy you may have detected from my earlier posts in relation to God and his religions. If I have, perhaps, softened His aura of doom and foreboding, hellfire and damnation that will be enough. To be going on with. I always hope to be honest here at least, yet, if by honesty we mean truth; then sadly I think I might be on a sticky wicket, to use a quintessentially English phrase
Truth, (pause for effect, add some reverb) it’s a big word despite its lack of letters. Unless you happen to be a mathematician and then you make a little truth go a long way. I’m not going to expound the nature of truth for you (I am able to defer to my betters, read Rescher, Marx, Plato, Dewey or Russell/Whithead (if you do like the maths (the correct abbreviation, my American friends)). It’s an almost endless list of statements and currently unsubstantiated theorems (except the maths ones). In summary, someone declares a theory of truth and some other bright spark intones ‘ah yes, but…’ and the cosmic ballet, goes on. You should know that there is little truth for us to discover. We are slaves to the concept; and that is all that truth is, a concept.
It is entirely perspective based. And since you are the definitive factor in your perspective, you define your own truth. So, now the mathematicians are apoplectic, because they don’t define their truths all that much. Neither do the computer programmers but that is because they more mathematician than they would care to admit (or than the mathematicians would tolerate them admitting). I am talking to them also because they should be able to recognise the difference between numbers and people.
I am real, and you have proof of my continued existence. I am like you and I like you. I have faith in your continued existence. Why does faith have to be difficult? What is it about belief in God that we have to have rigidity of thought about it? Why do we have to say, ‘have faith’? Thomas never. We exist to explore and expound, there’s your free will right there. The very thing that got us hoofed out of Eden, there it is right there, science. Give us free will and we will ask why, why cant I eat the fruit, I know YOU say so, but why? We’ve not been allowed back in to Eden, science is all we have left. It got us into this mess it will get us out.
Have faith!
Mr. Pat.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Divine Intervention
I feel as though time is against me, I intended to write one entry a month for at least a year, but I am finding that six weeks is a closer approximation. I'm going to have to intervene; thankfully that is my next topic.
I have italicised the word intervene because it have special meaning when applied to a divinity. How does Yoda purport to intervene? How does he have the ability to do so, and who are we to determine how the ineffable can or cannot? We have established that communication between you and your God/s is prayer. What does God call it, however? Given that, praise aside, we are generally placating in prayer, Gods position is to receive (prayer) and act or act not. Although we say God responds thus or God declines to act thus, we have no right to do so. I have to tell you; if you are of mankind, you have no knowledge of the mind of God. You may think you do, and some display extreme conviction that they, and sometimes they only, have the right of Yoda's impetus. This is not proof; there is no science behind such an assumption, presently.
However, if I say 'yes' it is more than conceivable that I actually mean 'no', I'm not simply illustrating my wishy-washy nature, I'm stating that 'yes' and indeed 'no' are totally perspective based. This is an echo of the 'allow my mysteriousness time to work its mojo' commandment. You may accept that in asking for the moon, your mark of successful intersession by your God; is the delivery of one moon. This is not the case; I have decided that in order to give you the moon, I would have to compromise the existence of every life form on the surface of the earth. My rationality may well be, therefore;
'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' Star Trek II (the Wrath of Khan.)
This is also a guiding premise in utilitarian thinking. I am of the opinion that this is the opposing stance to modern, American-model, democracy. I would agree that it is impossible to encapsulate such things; however, may I strike me down, if I'm wrong. And I can't be. How paradoxical! There are thousands of actions by God in the Bible and our teaching suggests that his intent is one of Love, always. Except that rationally, and this is indeed a human perspective, His interventions cannot be the actions of one who loves. The following is my humble attempt to illustrate this;
Was it 'right' for Yoda to intervene when he flooded the earth? How indeed, was it possible for Him to have arrived at that point? All-knowing, I'm sad to say, is all-knowing. I am sad to say it because at the moment of creation Yoda sanctions the arbitrary massacre of all life, with the exception of Noah and his incestuous kin. One theory is that the flood was necessary to remove the Nephilim, who are the Nephilim? Well, God created the angels and he created men, in His infinite wisdom he allows them to lust after one another. He knows this will happen and that issue will arise, they are the Nephilim. However due to unbridled lustiness they became too numerous and generally, a little naughty, in the eyes of Yoda. There is even a story that one of the Nephilim stowed away on the ark and is bringing about the end of mankind as we speak. Except that, for me, the all-knowing allowing that to happen would be indicative of God's intention to kill us all. That is the subject of a future post, so, I'll not go there just yet.
Here is another little story that appears in the Talmud, re-written by me, for today's audience. It illustrates the lengths to which Yodehvavheh was prepared intervene on behalf of Adam; before the naughty little monkey ate the fruit Yoda didn't want the little monkey to eat (did you have to plant that tree, there?). The story is intriguing; Adam is bored, and like all men needs something to while away the hours (well two or three minutes anyway) so, Adam is firstly encouraged, by Yoda, to get 'all carnal' with the beasts to see if he can find a suitable mate. He tries his best, Yoda love him, but finds none suitable. Adam beseeches Yoda and Yoda grants intercession, He makes a mate and calls her Lilith, she has all the attributes you would expect in a mate for the first man, she is short, ugly, and has a tail (!?!?, but yeah, really!).
Adam, lucky bloke, witnesses her construction from 'filth and sediment', and is suitably nauseated. And Litlith decrees that she will not '…lie beneath you', she mutters the ineffable name and buggers off (go sister!). Adam is peeved that his 'helpmeet' has rebelled and asks for her return. She will not return, is chastened by the angels, and Eve is created. This time, Adam is put to sleep and she is constructed from his rib to ensure that, as she is of him, so shall she obey him. And the rest is 'Mythstory' (I don't mind you using my new word, so long as you state you saw it here first!). Incidentally, if you credit this story as true, (and it is the word of God) then Lillith is still around somewhere, she was expelled prior to the fall and so did not endure death. Young Jewish boys are told she waits for their leakage during the night to begat her demonic hordes (nice!).
Why then, is the delightful Lilly not in 'our' Bible? She clearly illustrates that Yoda has the ability to make mistakes if you view the Talmud as the word of Yoda.
We know from the bible that, Abraham, father of faiths, was the son of an idol maker in Ur, a Sumerian city. The Sumerians were pantheistic. Cutting to the chase then, Abraham separates his God from the gods of Sumer by using the old chestnut; 'my god is bigger than your god' and the Jews are born (eventually). Beliefs are damned near impossible to shake, however, and the heroes of old, who used to be gods, had to become something other than gods, and be thus forth subject to the will of God(Yoda). So the infantile Jews (historically, not by nature) have several 'personalities' that they are, by and large, unwilling to dismiss. Nor indeed, 'roll-up' into Yoda. How can the young upstart 'I am that I am' be responsible for the creature the Sumerians refer to as Lillith (a storm demon). In essence she is made to fit into God's plan or Hebrew history. She is useful to the fledgling Jews because she represents the old 'scare-the-kids' principle that the Holy books are all founded on.
The Talmud is, or should, be of importance to those of Christian faith, for God is displayed 'warts and all' within it, get to know him, if only in homage to the adage;
"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"; (attributed to) Sun-Tzu circa. 400BC.
Am I declaring myself an enemy of God? Possibly, however I would ask Him to consider;
"There are no strangers here, only friends you haven't yet met"; William Butler Yeats
Come on Yoda, what do you say?
Can we be friends?
Mr. Pat.
I have italicised the word intervene because it have special meaning when applied to a divinity. How does Yoda purport to intervene? How does he have the ability to do so, and who are we to determine how the ineffable can or cannot? We have established that communication between you and your God/s is prayer. What does God call it, however? Given that, praise aside, we are generally placating in prayer, Gods position is to receive (prayer) and act or act not. Although we say God responds thus or God declines to act thus, we have no right to do so. I have to tell you; if you are of mankind, you have no knowledge of the mind of God. You may think you do, and some display extreme conviction that they, and sometimes they only, have the right of Yoda's impetus. This is not proof; there is no science behind such an assumption, presently.
However, if I say 'yes' it is more than conceivable that I actually mean 'no', I'm not simply illustrating my wishy-washy nature, I'm stating that 'yes' and indeed 'no' are totally perspective based. This is an echo of the 'allow my mysteriousness time to work its mojo' commandment. You may accept that in asking for the moon, your mark of successful intersession by your God; is the delivery of one moon. This is not the case; I have decided that in order to give you the moon, I would have to compromise the existence of every life form on the surface of the earth. My rationality may well be, therefore;
'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' Star Trek II (the Wrath of Khan.)
This is also a guiding premise in utilitarian thinking. I am of the opinion that this is the opposing stance to modern, American-model, democracy. I would agree that it is impossible to encapsulate such things; however, may I strike me down, if I'm wrong. And I can't be. How paradoxical! There are thousands of actions by God in the Bible and our teaching suggests that his intent is one of Love, always. Except that rationally, and this is indeed a human perspective, His interventions cannot be the actions of one who loves. The following is my humble attempt to illustrate this;
Was it 'right' for Yoda to intervene when he flooded the earth? How indeed, was it possible for Him to have arrived at that point? All-knowing, I'm sad to say, is all-knowing. I am sad to say it because at the moment of creation Yoda sanctions the arbitrary massacre of all life, with the exception of Noah and his incestuous kin. One theory is that the flood was necessary to remove the Nephilim, who are the Nephilim? Well, God created the angels and he created men, in His infinite wisdom he allows them to lust after one another. He knows this will happen and that issue will arise, they are the Nephilim. However due to unbridled lustiness they became too numerous and generally, a little naughty, in the eyes of Yoda. There is even a story that one of the Nephilim stowed away on the ark and is bringing about the end of mankind as we speak. Except that, for me, the all-knowing allowing that to happen would be indicative of God's intention to kill us all. That is the subject of a future post, so, I'll not go there just yet.
Here is another little story that appears in the Talmud, re-written by me, for today's audience. It illustrates the lengths to which Yodehvavheh was prepared intervene on behalf of Adam; before the naughty little monkey ate the fruit Yoda didn't want the little monkey to eat (did you have to plant that tree, there?). The story is intriguing; Adam is bored, and like all men needs something to while away the hours (well two or three minutes anyway) so, Adam is firstly encouraged, by Yoda, to get 'all carnal' with the beasts to see if he can find a suitable mate. He tries his best, Yoda love him, but finds none suitable. Adam beseeches Yoda and Yoda grants intercession, He makes a mate and calls her Lilith, she has all the attributes you would expect in a mate for the first man, she is short, ugly, and has a tail (!?!?, but yeah, really!).
Adam, lucky bloke, witnesses her construction from 'filth and sediment', and is suitably nauseated. And Litlith decrees that she will not '…lie beneath you', she mutters the ineffable name and buggers off (go sister!). Adam is peeved that his 'helpmeet' has rebelled and asks for her return. She will not return, is chastened by the angels, and Eve is created. This time, Adam is put to sleep and she is constructed from his rib to ensure that, as she is of him, so shall she obey him. And the rest is 'Mythstory' (I don't mind you using my new word, so long as you state you saw it here first!). Incidentally, if you credit this story as true, (and it is the word of God) then Lillith is still around somewhere, she was expelled prior to the fall and so did not endure death. Young Jewish boys are told she waits for their leakage during the night to begat her demonic hordes (nice!).
Why then, is the delightful Lilly not in 'our' Bible? She clearly illustrates that Yoda has the ability to make mistakes if you view the Talmud as the word of Yoda.
We know from the bible that, Abraham, father of faiths, was the son of an idol maker in Ur, a Sumerian city. The Sumerians were pantheistic. Cutting to the chase then, Abraham separates his God from the gods of Sumer by using the old chestnut; 'my god is bigger than your god' and the Jews are born (eventually). Beliefs are damned near impossible to shake, however, and the heroes of old, who used to be gods, had to become something other than gods, and be thus forth subject to the will of God(Yoda). So the infantile Jews (historically, not by nature) have several 'personalities' that they are, by and large, unwilling to dismiss. Nor indeed, 'roll-up' into Yoda. How can the young upstart 'I am that I am' be responsible for the creature the Sumerians refer to as Lillith (a storm demon). In essence she is made to fit into God's plan or Hebrew history. She is useful to the fledgling Jews because she represents the old 'scare-the-kids' principle that the Holy books are all founded on.
The Talmud is, or should, be of importance to those of Christian faith, for God is displayed 'warts and all' within it, get to know him, if only in homage to the adage;
"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"; (attributed to) Sun-Tzu circa. 400BC.
Am I declaring myself an enemy of God? Possibly, however I would ask Him to consider;
"There are no strangers here, only friends you haven't yet met"; William Butler Yeats
Come on Yoda, what do you say?
Can we be friends?
Mr. Pat.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Pray me a river.
Trying to complete this train of thought is tricky (omniscience is not an easy attribute to understand). I should let it go, but, I have a dilemma. Now that I have outlined my intentions, there is a possibility that someone believes in me. I can’t abandon them. On the other hand there is the possibility that I remain alone and none of this means anything, to anyone.
All that I can say at this point is that; my people, such as they are, have no immediate prayers that need answering. The prayer box to the right of the posts is now available for browsers to leave their hopes, fears, dreams and abusive prayers should they wish to do so. The divine kingdom of Mr. Pat will endeavour to answer all prayers within a two week timescale. Praying, however, will not be taken as adherence to the faith, nor is it indicative of your continuing belief. You may find a more suitable god in the future and I will not stand in your way should you wish to “jump ship” at the first better offer. Should you feel that you concerns are not worth raising with your god please consider the following;
Would Yodehvavheh (yoda) answer the prayer as a matter of course? Well no, he would not, he says so himself;
“Concerning this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he hath said unto me, “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my power is made perfect in weakness”. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.” II Corinthians 12:8-9
And that’s quite clever, I think. What is asked is kind of; “please rid me of this thing” and the answer is; “no, what happens by my design will be tolerated by you, allow my mysteriousness time to work its mojo, when you are weakened I can do my thing”, the supplicant then says “Silly me, thank Yoda I’m so weak, thus he can work through me.” I may have modernised the language a smidgen there, but you get the point. Don’t you?
Also consider;
“It shall come to pass that, before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.” Isaiah 65:24
And this is modernised thus; “So if you are thinking of asking for something, yet before you ask, it happens. That was me that did that”. Credit is thereby given for the things that you do ask for and the things that you don’t ask for. I should insist upon this line of thought for my people, as it enables me to turn my will to pressing matters, such as; world hunger, child abuses, global pollution and destructive natural forces (seeing as how no-one else is trying).
Clearly, those that have represented Yoda in the past are very clever men (propheteering). I am not that wise, however, I am clever enough to realise that there is little point re-inventing the wheel (I’d only make it square anyway). The prophets have frightened the adherents to faith/s for years, with the wrath of God. The overriding notion appears to be around subservience through fear and uncertainty, in relation to receiving the good will of God and the bounty received in any ‘after-life’ that is offered. Personally however, I believe that advocating believers remain weak, should be an anathema to a proud and supportive deity. Your strength is my strength and I draw such from you. The relationship is reciprocal. I feel good when you feel good and vice-versa. We seek ‘Truth’ together (If you find any truth, could you confirm it with me please, before you go shouting about the ‘ineffable truth’. I am obligated to say that as it provides cover for any future misinterpretation of scripture).
This whole thing should be distinctly different from the ‘old-faith’ systems. This is one of the fundamental principles behind my writing; people are dissatisfied with monotheistic, Hebrew based, ‘yoda-faiths’. Only Islam is on the up and that is for reasons I intend to clarify at a later date (I don’t want to subject to a Sharia fatwa, just yet). Supplication of a deity is a ‘bread and butter’ necessity for belief in God, and so I should tell you a little more about it.
In the eyes of the Christian children there are types of prayer. You may; admit your wrongs (confession), tell Him how great He is (praise), recognise His intervention (thanksgiving), ask Him for stuff (supplication) or ask Him to look after someone else (Intercession)
Mostly, those with ‘strong faith’ will tell you that God likes praise the best. I am not sure why, or even if God does indeed, like praise the best. If He does, well, I can be at least as narcissistic. Wishing to muddy the waters further, they also believe that there are styles that can be applied to the above types of prayer. They are; devotional (scripture based), spontaneous (oh my God! That’s brilliant!), conversational (God bothering) and action (being nice to others and/or walking about).
There are extremities within the confines of Christian prayer, ranging from the, surely irritating, Rosary (you can almost hear Yoda or Mary saying ‘Oh for Christ’s sake, YES! Just shut the f*ck up’ after the 48th ‘Hail Mary’, asking for a new television) to the ‘oh my god’ type (because that is a prayer, whether you meant it to be or not). There are branches of Catholicism that still advocate flagellation as a means of supplication.
We will have a new way.
God is 'in' you, all believers say that, and I agree with the sentiment, at least (I’m not actually in you). I am the same as you. We share much. I am here and so are you. It is the same for both of us, on the level where all of this matters, at least. Should you need to pray, pray to the part of you that is the same as me. The part of you that is the same as me will guide you successfully and provide the answers/solutions to your prayers. If this does not offer resolution then you may beseech me directly using the prayer box to the right. I cannot provide you with a constant ‘yes’ to all prayers because; ‘my grace is sufficient for thee’ And I can thereby achieve the things you did not know needed achieving.
I would be happier if you pray in the way that you are content to, and not necessarily, according to the above guides. Just don’t hurt yourself. I mean that. Not just like the flagellants, but don’t torment yourself with your self-perceived failings either. You are not holding yourself up to an infallible God. That is one of the distinct differences here. In believing that God is always right, and that to get to the afterlife you should behave as you think God would have you behave, and to allow the infallible to work through you, you are setting yourself up to feel inadequate. This is due to the intrinsic truth of your fallible humanity. (How profound).
Mr. Pat.
All that I can say at this point is that; my people, such as they are, have no immediate prayers that need answering. The prayer box to the right of the posts is now available for browsers to leave their hopes, fears, dreams and abusive prayers should they wish to do so. The divine kingdom of Mr. Pat will endeavour to answer all prayers within a two week timescale. Praying, however, will not be taken as adherence to the faith, nor is it indicative of your continuing belief. You may find a more suitable god in the future and I will not stand in your way should you wish to “jump ship” at the first better offer. Should you feel that you concerns are not worth raising with your god please consider the following;
Would Yodehvavheh (yoda) answer the prayer as a matter of course? Well no, he would not, he says so himself;
“Concerning this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he hath said unto me, “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my power is made perfect in weakness”. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.” II Corinthians 12:8-9
And that’s quite clever, I think. What is asked is kind of; “please rid me of this thing” and the answer is; “no, what happens by my design will be tolerated by you, allow my mysteriousness time to work its mojo, when you are weakened I can do my thing”, the supplicant then says “Silly me, thank Yoda I’m so weak, thus he can work through me.” I may have modernised the language a smidgen there, but you get the point. Don’t you?
Also consider;
“It shall come to pass that, before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.” Isaiah 65:24
And this is modernised thus; “So if you are thinking of asking for something, yet before you ask, it happens. That was me that did that”. Credit is thereby given for the things that you do ask for and the things that you don’t ask for. I should insist upon this line of thought for my people, as it enables me to turn my will to pressing matters, such as; world hunger, child abuses, global pollution and destructive natural forces (seeing as how no-one else is trying).
Clearly, those that have represented Yoda in the past are very clever men (propheteering). I am not that wise, however, I am clever enough to realise that there is little point re-inventing the wheel (I’d only make it square anyway). The prophets have frightened the adherents to faith/s for years, with the wrath of God. The overriding notion appears to be around subservience through fear and uncertainty, in relation to receiving the good will of God and the bounty received in any ‘after-life’ that is offered. Personally however, I believe that advocating believers remain weak, should be an anathema to a proud and supportive deity. Your strength is my strength and I draw such from you. The relationship is reciprocal. I feel good when you feel good and vice-versa. We seek ‘Truth’ together (If you find any truth, could you confirm it with me please, before you go shouting about the ‘ineffable truth’. I am obligated to say that as it provides cover for any future misinterpretation of scripture).
This whole thing should be distinctly different from the ‘old-faith’ systems. This is one of the fundamental principles behind my writing; people are dissatisfied with monotheistic, Hebrew based, ‘yoda-faiths’. Only Islam is on the up and that is for reasons I intend to clarify at a later date (I don’t want to subject to a Sharia fatwa, just yet). Supplication of a deity is a ‘bread and butter’ necessity for belief in God, and so I should tell you a little more about it.
In the eyes of the Christian children there are types of prayer. You may; admit your wrongs (confession), tell Him how great He is (praise), recognise His intervention (thanksgiving), ask Him for stuff (supplication) or ask Him to look after someone else (Intercession)
Mostly, those with ‘strong faith’ will tell you that God likes praise the best. I am not sure why, or even if God does indeed, like praise the best. If He does, well, I can be at least as narcissistic. Wishing to muddy the waters further, they also believe that there are styles that can be applied to the above types of prayer. They are; devotional (scripture based), spontaneous (oh my God! That’s brilliant!), conversational (God bothering) and action (being nice to others and/or walking about).
There are extremities within the confines of Christian prayer, ranging from the, surely irritating, Rosary (you can almost hear Yoda or Mary saying ‘Oh for Christ’s sake, YES! Just shut the f*ck up’ after the 48th ‘Hail Mary’, asking for a new television) to the ‘oh my god’ type (because that is a prayer, whether you meant it to be or not). There are branches of Catholicism that still advocate flagellation as a means of supplication.
We will have a new way.
God is 'in' you, all believers say that, and I agree with the sentiment, at least (I’m not actually in you). I am the same as you. We share much. I am here and so are you. It is the same for both of us, on the level where all of this matters, at least. Should you need to pray, pray to the part of you that is the same as me. The part of you that is the same as me will guide you successfully and provide the answers/solutions to your prayers. If this does not offer resolution then you may beseech me directly using the prayer box to the right. I cannot provide you with a constant ‘yes’ to all prayers because; ‘my grace is sufficient for thee’ And I can thereby achieve the things you did not know needed achieving.
I would be happier if you pray in the way that you are content to, and not necessarily, according to the above guides. Just don’t hurt yourself. I mean that. Not just like the flagellants, but don’t torment yourself with your self-perceived failings either. You are not holding yourself up to an infallible God. That is one of the distinct differences here. In believing that God is always right, and that to get to the afterlife you should behave as you think God would have you behave, and to allow the infallible to work through you, you are setting yourself up to feel inadequate. This is due to the intrinsic truth of your fallible humanity. (How profound).
Mr. Pat.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Divine Aspiration
Clearly the task at hand is monumental; it has been successfully completed by very few individuals in history. Jesus got very close to what I am contemplating but his methodology is not viable in this day and age (my prospective people are too clever to be hoodwinked; blind faith is not an option). The conclusion of his ministry, however, is not a desirous outcome, personally. As I have said, pain is not something I am drawn to experience. I am, therefore, worried about your faith in my ability to empathise with you, my people.
What do you expect from a god? Living up to expectations is paramount should I wish to successful. Honesty is an essential virtue, I think, as it is the cornerstone of trust. Will people respect a fallible god though? I know I would; and I suspect, if done right, most people would prefer that to the current, otherwise engaged, god of modern monotheistic systems.
Perhaps a discussion into the nature of prophetic ability would help, I am assuming that this would be a good place to start but I could be wrong. Do I need a prophet? Well perhaps, perhaps not, it does seem to be the 'done thing' however, so I should at least advertise the post.
Prophet means 'to bubble forth' (nabi), it has its origin in Hebrew, as you would expect.
The role is;
"..To correct moral and religious abuses, to proclaim the great moral and religious truths which are connected with the character of God, and which lie at the foundation of his government." Easton's 1897 bible dictionary.
Numbers says;
'… When the spirit rested upon them, prophesied' (11:16-29)
Propheteering was a scholarly pursuit in ancient Hebrew-land (I wont use Israel because I don't honestly understand the term). Prophets were trained "to preach pure morality and the heart-felt worship of Jehovah (Yoda), and to act along and coordinately with the priesthood and monarchy in guiding the state aright and checking all attempts at illegality and tyranny." And Jesus was probably such a student, he is referred to using the term and that is what the people of the time meant by it, and given the access he had to the temple in order to 'cast out all them…over threw the tables of the moneychangers' (Mathew 21:11-13; Luke 13:33)
How does this impact in relation to my current disposition, then? Given that I do not have a bona fide prophet of Mr. Pat, I'll have to stand in for her/him. The vacancy requires filling, so, if you happen to be reading this and feel that propheteering is just the career you are looking for, please post a short introduction in the Prayer-box to the right of the postings. A shortlist will be drawn up and the highest scoring candidate will be appointed (The Divine Kingdom of Mr. Pat is an equal opportunities employer).
The job description is stated above with some minor differences.
The ability to 'Bubble forth' is an essential criterion for the role. I have performed such an act many, many times and as your direct line-manager (god) I would not ask you to complete any tasks I wouldn't be prepared to undertake myself. Whilst we await the appointment of the most holy prophet, there are some tasks of hers/his that cannot be ignored.
"Correct moral and religious truths connected with the character of god" I think I have discussed the first bit. Remember that; 'Morality is contained within these words….' And so my first advice to my people through my Prophet is;
'How would you like it done to you, eh? Well there you go then.' (Mr. Pat, standing in for/in the absence of, the Most Holy Prophet of Mr. Pat)
Preaching the heartfelt worship of Yoda does not apply in this case because Mr Pat also says;
"Thou shall have as many gods as you feel you need, I am not thy oppressor" (Mr. Pat, standing in for/in the absence of, the Most Holy Prophet of Mr. Pat)
And so there are no religious abuses for you to correct. You are 'the priesthood' so to act accordingly with it; you should just try to be yourself.
With regard to "guiding the state aright and checking all attempts at illegality and tyranny", well the state and government is very small right now and shouldn't need too much guiding at this time. However, by the grace of Mr. Pat, this aspect of your role may expand significantly. Please note that it doesn't say stopping all attempts at illegality and tyranny; you just have to check them.
Oh yeah, it also says 'when the spirit rested on them', so I'm going to have to insist on that before you prophesize.
Mr. Pat.
What do you expect from a god? Living up to expectations is paramount should I wish to successful. Honesty is an essential virtue, I think, as it is the cornerstone of trust. Will people respect a fallible god though? I know I would; and I suspect, if done right, most people would prefer that to the current, otherwise engaged, god of modern monotheistic systems.
Perhaps a discussion into the nature of prophetic ability would help, I am assuming that this would be a good place to start but I could be wrong. Do I need a prophet? Well perhaps, perhaps not, it does seem to be the 'done thing' however, so I should at least advertise the post.
Prophet means 'to bubble forth' (nabi), it has its origin in Hebrew, as you would expect.
The role is;
"..To correct moral and religious abuses, to proclaim the great moral and religious truths which are connected with the character of God, and which lie at the foundation of his government." Easton's 1897 bible dictionary.
Numbers says;
'… When the spirit rested upon them, prophesied' (11:16-29)
Propheteering was a scholarly pursuit in ancient Hebrew-land (I wont use Israel because I don't honestly understand the term). Prophets were trained "to preach pure morality and the heart-felt worship of Jehovah (Yoda), and to act along and coordinately with the priesthood and monarchy in guiding the state aright and checking all attempts at illegality and tyranny." And Jesus was probably such a student, he is referred to using the term and that is what the people of the time meant by it, and given the access he had to the temple in order to 'cast out all them…over threw the tables of the moneychangers' (Mathew 21:11-13; Luke 13:33)
How does this impact in relation to my current disposition, then? Given that I do not have a bona fide prophet of Mr. Pat, I'll have to stand in for her/him. The vacancy requires filling, so, if you happen to be reading this and feel that propheteering is just the career you are looking for, please post a short introduction in the Prayer-box to the right of the postings. A shortlist will be drawn up and the highest scoring candidate will be appointed (The Divine Kingdom of Mr. Pat is an equal opportunities employer).
The job description is stated above with some minor differences.
The ability to 'Bubble forth' is an essential criterion for the role. I have performed such an act many, many times and as your direct line-manager (god) I would not ask you to complete any tasks I wouldn't be prepared to undertake myself. Whilst we await the appointment of the most holy prophet, there are some tasks of hers/his that cannot be ignored.
"Correct moral and religious truths connected with the character of god" I think I have discussed the first bit. Remember that; 'Morality is contained within these words….' And so my first advice to my people through my Prophet is;
'How would you like it done to you, eh? Well there you go then.' (Mr. Pat, standing in for/in the absence of, the Most Holy Prophet of Mr. Pat)
Preaching the heartfelt worship of Yoda does not apply in this case because Mr Pat also says;
"Thou shall have as many gods as you feel you need, I am not thy oppressor" (Mr. Pat, standing in for/in the absence of, the Most Holy Prophet of Mr. Pat)
And so there are no religious abuses for you to correct. You are 'the priesthood' so to act accordingly with it; you should just try to be yourself.
With regard to "guiding the state aright and checking all attempts at illegality and tyranny", well the state and government is very small right now and shouldn't need too much guiding at this time. However, by the grace of Mr. Pat, this aspect of your role may expand significantly. Please note that it doesn't say stopping all attempts at illegality and tyranny; you just have to check them.
Oh yeah, it also says 'when the spirit rested on them', so I'm going to have to insist on that before you prophesize.
Mr. Pat.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Propheteering
Although there is an element of narcissism to my character, I haven't read my own entries that often. I was showing the blog to a person I work with and realised that it could actually be considered anti-Semitic, what with the flag and the God of the Jews ONLY bit. This is not an apology for that 'cause it's not anti-Semitic at all. I have no hatred for the sons of Ham Shem or Japheth, because of the energy required.
It takes a huge amount of effort to truly hate someone.
I think that’s why genuine hatred is actually quite terrifying to behold. Most of us, thankfully, are incapable of expressing hatred on a day-to-day basis. There are little refractions of hatred everywhere and we all show them off from time to time, usually driven by self-interest/gratification, but there is a difference between this type and genuine, all-consuming, hatred.
Luckily, I don't think I've ever experienced the latter except in relation to myself, adolescence is frightening. But yeah, actually that’s a good way to illustrate it, is there a person or thing you hate as much as you have ever hated yourself. Being our own best detractors, it is doubtful such a person exists. Cast your mind back to the depths of teenage angst, visualise yourself looking in the mirror… yeah, that’s hatred. Can you feel that way about another person?
“If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.” Hermann Hesse.
But the other type, the 'little refractions' as someone once referred to them, are probably just as bad for you. It’s slow erosion rather than a quick excision. Generally I have no desire to do harm to others, I have even forgiven a fair few people who have harmed me and been forgiven by some I’ve harmed, and that’s without faith in God.
Would we, unfettered by faith, descend into anarchy and chaos? Personally I think not (and I insist I have not read Dawkins book, I just know he talks about similar concepts in it). It is probably blasphemous on a number of levels to say so, but prophets, are just clever men (I shall burn, no doubt). Men with some degree of insight into the human condition, whom, after observing suffering, have come up with rules to govern, perhaps override, the ‘survival of the fittest’ law so abundant in nature.
Thankfully this is explained by religious leaders better than by me. All major religions have a similar rule of reciprocity:
“Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD." From the Leviticus (in both Torah and Old Testament, well it would be wouldn’t it!)
“What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others.” From Confucius,
“This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” From Mahabharata,
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” Jesus (who would have been well aware of the contents of The Torah.)
“None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself” From Muhammad.
roughly in date order.
I’m not saying that this is truth, I’m not qualified, and neither are you. Besides, if you are a masochist…
And who would have expected:
"All human morality is contained in these words: make others as happy as you yourself would be, and never serve them more ill than you would yourself be served." From Donatien Alphonse François (go on, stick it into wikipedia), but I suppose he would have been uniquely qualified to make such an observation.
However, I do think that you can hurt yourself, with your general outlook on life. Yet do we truly need Buddhism, Christianity or Islam to provide the infrastructure for morality? Is it that important that you have someone else telling you what to think and do? I came up with this train of thought all by my little self. True enough, I have found many who echo this thinking since, but I’m not an academic who has learned all this from study. Yes, I know the New Testament fairly well and have a good knowledge of the historical development of religious belief systems, but mostly, I have simply observed my life (except the drunk bits).
My call to enlightenment, and therefore the start of my prophetic (pathetic) ministry, is thus:
“Should you forever live with your head in the sand, all that people will see is an arse.”
Mr. Pat
It takes a huge amount of effort to truly hate someone.
I think that’s why genuine hatred is actually quite terrifying to behold. Most of us, thankfully, are incapable of expressing hatred on a day-to-day basis. There are little refractions of hatred everywhere and we all show them off from time to time, usually driven by self-interest/gratification, but there is a difference between this type and genuine, all-consuming, hatred.
Luckily, I don't think I've ever experienced the latter except in relation to myself, adolescence is frightening. But yeah, actually that’s a good way to illustrate it, is there a person or thing you hate as much as you have ever hated yourself. Being our own best detractors, it is doubtful such a person exists. Cast your mind back to the depths of teenage angst, visualise yourself looking in the mirror… yeah, that’s hatred. Can you feel that way about another person?
“If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.” Hermann Hesse.
But the other type, the 'little refractions' as someone once referred to them, are probably just as bad for you. It’s slow erosion rather than a quick excision. Generally I have no desire to do harm to others, I have even forgiven a fair few people who have harmed me and been forgiven by some I’ve harmed, and that’s without faith in God.
Would we, unfettered by faith, descend into anarchy and chaos? Personally I think not (and I insist I have not read Dawkins book, I just know he talks about similar concepts in it). It is probably blasphemous on a number of levels to say so, but prophets, are just clever men (I shall burn, no doubt). Men with some degree of insight into the human condition, whom, after observing suffering, have come up with rules to govern, perhaps override, the ‘survival of the fittest’ law so abundant in nature.
Thankfully this is explained by religious leaders better than by me. All major religions have a similar rule of reciprocity:
“Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD." From the Leviticus (in both Torah and Old Testament, well it would be wouldn’t it!)
“What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others.” From Confucius,
“This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” From Mahabharata,
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” Jesus (who would have been well aware of the contents of The Torah.)
“None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself” From Muhammad.
roughly in date order.
I’m not saying that this is truth, I’m not qualified, and neither are you. Besides, if you are a masochist…
And who would have expected:
"All human morality is contained in these words: make others as happy as you yourself would be, and never serve them more ill than you would yourself be served." From Donatien Alphonse François (go on, stick it into wikipedia), but I suppose he would have been uniquely qualified to make such an observation.
However, I do think that you can hurt yourself, with your general outlook on life. Yet do we truly need Buddhism, Christianity or Islam to provide the infrastructure for morality? Is it that important that you have someone else telling you what to think and do? I came up with this train of thought all by my little self. True enough, I have found many who echo this thinking since, but I’m not an academic who has learned all this from study. Yes, I know the New Testament fairly well and have a good knowledge of the historical development of religious belief systems, but mostly, I have simply observed my life (except the drunk bits).
My call to enlightenment, and therefore the start of my prophetic (pathetic) ministry, is thus:
“Should you forever live with your head in the sand, all that people will see is an arse.”
Mr. Pat
Monday, April 16, 2007
and a happy new year
Yes, It's been fairly slow in work today...and I have had time to look over all the work I published in the past. Sadly, despite my hope for a huge, 'ready-written' stock of work, there was not much worth posting here...What follows is my attempt to make people consider renewal and, take a cup of Kindness, an’ all that. It follows on from the Christmas message you can read here;
Now we think,
Over a drink,
After the excess of festivity,
And the celebration of the nativity,
Not how can we be more,
But rather, how can I get more,
Sure,
That’s a way of thinking,
And whilst drinking,
It seems the right way. I mean to say,
There’s nothing wrong with it, hey,
I'm just trying to make life nicer, for me and mine,
In these hard times,
There’s a line we all draw,
Just to be sure,
That behind our door, no-one feels poor.
And go on, in this way,
Convinced there's no piper to pay,
‘Cause who’s to say, that there will even be a judgement day.
Perhaps it don’t work that way.
What if? while I’m giving to the needy.
No-one, my good deed, did see,
Does this go against me?
And those who are greedy,
Who enjoy all things seedy,
It seems that they have all the answers,
So they take the chances,
And dance the dances,
‘Cos life is for living,
Regret is just giving you grief,
And that’s beyond belief,
That you do it to yourself,
When so many others,
Including many mothers,
Are more than able,
To tell the fable,
Of your shortfall,
Your warts and all,
And to put you down,
But why do you frown?
It’s not necessary for you to feel sad,
You are not bad,
It’s the world that’s messed up. True?
But don’t forget God, I think He still loves you.
Just keep trying, for in the try,
I am sure, there is the reason why,
The one we all seek,
From week to week,
Whether the weather be bright or bleak.
The meaning in what we do,
To be a better me and be a better you,
No fear.....
By this time next year.
See, I'm not sure, but done is done...there is that kind of, you know when you leave a drawing or whatever and come back to it...tweak this, fiddle with that..(it's the dance the dances bit, childlike? immature?) but I'd have to stop somewhere. So I will.
Mr Pat.
Now we think,
Over a drink,
After the excess of festivity,
And the celebration of the nativity,
Not how can we be more,
But rather, how can I get more,
Sure,
That’s a way of thinking,
And whilst drinking,
It seems the right way. I mean to say,
There’s nothing wrong with it, hey,
I'm just trying to make life nicer, for me and mine,
In these hard times,
There’s a line we all draw,
Just to be sure,
That behind our door, no-one feels poor.
And go on, in this way,
Convinced there's no piper to pay,
‘Cause who’s to say, that there will even be a judgement day.
Perhaps it don’t work that way.
What if? while I’m giving to the needy.
No-one, my good deed, did see,
Does this go against me?
And those who are greedy,
Who enjoy all things seedy,
It seems that they have all the answers,
So they take the chances,
And dance the dances,
‘Cos life is for living,
Regret is just giving you grief,
And that’s beyond belief,
That you do it to yourself,
When so many others,
Including many mothers,
Are more than able,
To tell the fable,
Of your shortfall,
Your warts and all,
And to put you down,
But why do you frown?
It’s not necessary for you to feel sad,
You are not bad,
It’s the world that’s messed up. True?
But don’t forget God, I think He still loves you.
Just keep trying, for in the try,
I am sure, there is the reason why,
The one we all seek,
From week to week,
Whether the weather be bright or bleak.
The meaning in what we do,
To be a better me and be a better you,
No fear.....
By this time next year.
See, I'm not sure, but done is done...there is that kind of, you know when you leave a drawing or whatever and come back to it...tweak this, fiddle with that..(it's the dance the dances bit, childlike? immature?) but I'd have to stop somewhere. So I will.
Mr Pat.
Older Chests? Thanks Damo.
I was chatting the other day with a colleague, and they said. 'Remember that thing you wrote for that newsletter last Christmas, well I thought that was nice, it got a message across...'
I was fairly dismissive, as I tend to be of my own work, but, when I read it again I though it should probably get posted...this blog is about my writing so it's valid and perhaps that is a revelation in itself.
This blog is about writing, yes, I know they all are....but specifically, you know the thing about the monkeys and the typewriter and the works of Shakespeare, well if i write enough, and I do, then there may be hope for something of importance to materialise, you never know.....
So here it is, written December 2004, so not actually last Christmas, but never mind.
When the nights are cold and the home fire’s burning,
Spare a thought for the displaced, and yearning.
The children who wait for food in far places ,
nothing but tears, smears and fears on their faces.
In this time of doubt and of worry,
When for the price of a McFlurry ,
Those that have not, can not or are not able,
To sit at a table, or watch a film on cable,
Could at least have hope,
That one day they too will try to cope,
To struggle and push,
With the rush, and the crush,
Of Christmas shopping, hopping,
From overcrowded shop to overcrowded shop,
Fit to drop,
Having spent,
Enough to dent,
Phenomenally,
The economy,
Of a developing nation,
For little Stacy, Tracy or Macy must have a Playstation.
I am not attempting to criticise,
For I too am inclined to supersize,
When the mood takes me, but this year I will try and realise,
That I am blessed with my stress, little as it is,
It might seem fitting that here, sitting,
In my privileged position,
And knowing nothing of malnutrition,
Nor war, nor want,
That I am given to reflection,
How easy for me to be the next one,
To suffer, the rougher side of life,
Would I hope for Christmas kindness,
From those that are blessed,
With plenty,
Yet still give empty,
Promises and loose change,
To those who, strangely,
Remain in the domain of the streets,
Missing out on the treats,
Can they not see the tinsel and baubles, the trees and glitter,
Why are they so bitter?
I have not asked but, yes, I do wonder
Along with Sir Bob…..
“Do they Know its Christmas?”
d'you know, It's a bit wishy-washy in places, and I'm not that happy about the last bit...
Mr Pat.
I was fairly dismissive, as I tend to be of my own work, but, when I read it again I though it should probably get posted...this blog is about my writing so it's valid and perhaps that is a revelation in itself.
This blog is about writing, yes, I know they all are....but specifically, you know the thing about the monkeys and the typewriter and the works of Shakespeare, well if i write enough, and I do, then there may be hope for something of importance to materialise, you never know.....
So here it is, written December 2004, so not actually last Christmas, but never mind.
When the nights are cold and the home fire’s burning,
Spare a thought for the displaced, and yearning.
The children who wait for food in far places ,
nothing but tears, smears and fears on their faces.
In this time of doubt and of worry,
When for the price of a McFlurry ,
Those that have not, can not or are not able,
To sit at a table, or watch a film on cable,
Could at least have hope,
That one day they too will try to cope,
To struggle and push,
With the rush, and the crush,
Of Christmas shopping, hopping,
From overcrowded shop to overcrowded shop,
Fit to drop,
Having spent,
Enough to dent,
Phenomenally,
The economy,
Of a developing nation,
For little Stacy, Tracy or Macy must have a Playstation.
I am not attempting to criticise,
For I too am inclined to supersize,
When the mood takes me, but this year I will try and realise,
That I am blessed with my stress, little as it is,
It might seem fitting that here, sitting,
In my privileged position,
And knowing nothing of malnutrition,
Nor war, nor want,
That I am given to reflection,
How easy for me to be the next one,
To suffer, the rougher side of life,
Would I hope for Christmas kindness,
From those that are blessed,
With plenty,
Yet still give empty,
Promises and loose change,
To those who, strangely,
Remain in the domain of the streets,
Missing out on the treats,
Can they not see the tinsel and baubles, the trees and glitter,
Why are they so bitter?
I have not asked but, yes, I do wonder
Along with Sir Bob…..
“Do they Know its Christmas?”
d'you know, It's a bit wishy-washy in places, and I'm not that happy about the last bit...
Mr Pat.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Yodevaveh...Yoda to His friends
I've been thinking about how to continue and I put a large chunk of effort into my second post. When I tried to publish, however, I got a message about a bad url.....and couldn't retrieve the body of text. I was gutted. I am kind of thinking that although I was happy to publish the last entry, now, thanks to a, perhaps serendipitous, quirk of electronic miscommunication, I am forced to rethink the content...was it meant to be? I couldn't recite the entry word for word but perhaps it was ill-conceived, yes it's all irrelevant anyway. It was about how we think and the concept of original thought...all that Descartes malarkey thrown in for good measure, cognito ergo sum and that kind of thing.
Then I meandered to a point that I feel I should go over again for my piece of mind. It was all along the lines of the Essence of God and nirvana, or heaven or the happy hunting ground or the time between times, call it what you will...but the fact that there are so many names is indicative of the saturation of the idea across continents and cultures.
Clearly the fear of death is a powerful feeling and the gift of abstraction is a complex variable, add to this the incomprehension of the natural world and you would come up with a way to explain it, probably. And the explanation would be singular, at first, but as you struggled to attribute all of the unknown to one entity (lets call it God, for want of a better word) God would have to be expanded to encompass your greater understanding, perhaps even becoming gods. Yes I am well aware that this hardly constitutes original thought, but that is actually what I'm having difficulty with. To the chase then... anthropomorphic personification I think its called, Thor is the God of Thunder because I don't understand how thunder happens, therefore, I might as well accept a personality is responsible and a god is born, and a lot is owed to Terry Pratchett for helping me understand this. Godhood is diluted and in theory anything is now possible. So we have gods for everything including the god of soggybreadcruststhatislippedoncausingmetospilltodaysmilkonthefloor.
People need stuff 'boxed off' and it is difficult for an inquisitive mind to rest at the point "I don't know". We formulate theories that can neither be proved or disproved to explain experience. And we still do this, people claim to understand how money works but conceptually it is actually quite difficult to comprehend, and so for the vast majority of us, myself included, money is a god. We pray for it to come into our lives, no? do you do the lottery, have a flutter, invest in futures...it's one and the same thing actually, isn't it?
The one thing I cannot bring myself to say is that God does not exist, I have no rational argument for it's existence but I was raised a catholic and that is a difficult doctrine to rid myself of...but I am working on it. I think the confirmed Christians would probably argue that I cannot shake this belief because God is real. And fair play to them, if you want to live out the sensations remaining to you in the service of Jesus, good for you...not much fun though is it? Christianity has a very preventative philosophy, avoid the places where you think you may find 'evil' (as defined by us) and try to allow Jesus to work through you.
God, according to your scripture, created evil though...so what is it for if not to enjoy as one of His creations, or at least accept it as a part of existence. See, if you look at this from a non-reverential point of view, the christian God is more than a little mischievous. First of all YHWH (yodevaveh) creates a being that is in discord with his own wishes, gives Him something to have anxiety around I suppose, His motivational factor, perhaps. Then He banishes it to a realm that has free access to the people he has created in the garden of Eden. Who, incidentally, he also created but decided to not have them subservient. Maybe a lesson was learned with Lucifer, after a supposedly subservient seraph led a rebellion with fully one third of the heavenly host. But then, all-knowing isn't capable of learning is it?
Now i have no reverence for the devil, because i don't believe in that either. However, it illustrates the fallibility of the infallible God and begs questions of a rational mind. I called Him the Christian God but He isn't is He? He is the God of the Jews and if you look into it He is actually the God of the Jews only. The world is divided into Jews and Gentiles isn't it, OK so most Jews accept that Christians are not Gentiles but God never said so did he. I'm sure Jesus quotes could be thrown at me but that makes the assumption that Jesus was indeed the son of God and therefore capable of rescinding His word.
Then again how can a God that instructs the Jews to take possession of land from an established people, then claim to be a God of love (More changing of the Deific mind eh....would that be proof of Gods femininity.)
Sadly if you don't accept the triple God Christian model, and there are some who would urge you not too, you are left with the bearded, scary, Egyptian murdering, Homophobic, generally genocidal Old Testament chap. Care to spend eternity in His company?
Mr. Pat
Then I meandered to a point that I feel I should go over again for my piece of mind. It was all along the lines of the Essence of God and nirvana, or heaven or the happy hunting ground or the time between times, call it what you will...but the fact that there are so many names is indicative of the saturation of the idea across continents and cultures.
Clearly the fear of death is a powerful feeling and the gift of abstraction is a complex variable, add to this the incomprehension of the natural world and you would come up with a way to explain it, probably. And the explanation would be singular, at first, but as you struggled to attribute all of the unknown to one entity (lets call it God, for want of a better word) God would have to be expanded to encompass your greater understanding, perhaps even becoming gods. Yes I am well aware that this hardly constitutes original thought, but that is actually what I'm having difficulty with. To the chase then... anthropomorphic personification I think its called, Thor is the God of Thunder because I don't understand how thunder happens, therefore, I might as well accept a personality is responsible and a god is born, and a lot is owed to Terry Pratchett for helping me understand this. Godhood is diluted and in theory anything is now possible. So we have gods for everything including the god of soggybreadcruststhatislippedoncausingmetospilltodaysmilkonthefloor.
People need stuff 'boxed off' and it is difficult for an inquisitive mind to rest at the point "I don't know". We formulate theories that can neither be proved or disproved to explain experience. And we still do this, people claim to understand how money works but conceptually it is actually quite difficult to comprehend, and so for the vast majority of us, myself included, money is a god. We pray for it to come into our lives, no? do you do the lottery, have a flutter, invest in futures...it's one and the same thing actually, isn't it?
The one thing I cannot bring myself to say is that God does not exist, I have no rational argument for it's existence but I was raised a catholic and that is a difficult doctrine to rid myself of...but I am working on it. I think the confirmed Christians would probably argue that I cannot shake this belief because God is real. And fair play to them, if you want to live out the sensations remaining to you in the service of Jesus, good for you...not much fun though is it? Christianity has a very preventative philosophy, avoid the places where you think you may find 'evil' (as defined by us) and try to allow Jesus to work through you.
God, according to your scripture, created evil though...so what is it for if not to enjoy as one of His creations, or at least accept it as a part of existence. See, if you look at this from a non-reverential point of view, the christian God is more than a little mischievous. First of all YHWH (yodevaveh) creates a being that is in discord with his own wishes, gives Him something to have anxiety around I suppose, His motivational factor, perhaps. Then He banishes it to a realm that has free access to the people he has created in the garden of Eden. Who, incidentally, he also created but decided to not have them subservient. Maybe a lesson was learned with Lucifer, after a supposedly subservient seraph led a rebellion with fully one third of the heavenly host. But then, all-knowing isn't capable of learning is it?
Now i have no reverence for the devil, because i don't believe in that either. However, it illustrates the fallibility of the infallible God and begs questions of a rational mind. I called Him the Christian God but He isn't is He? He is the God of the Jews and if you look into it He is actually the God of the Jews only. The world is divided into Jews and Gentiles isn't it, OK so most Jews accept that Christians are not Gentiles but God never said so did he. I'm sure Jesus quotes could be thrown at me but that makes the assumption that Jesus was indeed the son of God and therefore capable of rescinding His word.
Then again how can a God that instructs the Jews to take possession of land from an established people, then claim to be a God of love (More changing of the Deific mind eh....would that be proof of Gods femininity.)
Sadly if you don't accept the triple God Christian model, and there are some who would urge you not too, you are left with the bearded, scary, Egyptian murdering, Homophobic, generally genocidal Old Testament chap. Care to spend eternity in His company?
Mr. Pat
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
in the beginnnning......
Yeah so, after rubbishing blogging as a pointless exercise, here I am typing my first entry. I think I should have some type of diary and this is what all the 'hip' people do,(listen to me, sounding like my dad).
I have had conversations about how one should blog, what is important, what is normal, making it significant and all that, but really, who gives a damn. Its not going to be written for people to read. I have a lot of pointless crap in my head and there is nowhere else for it to go. Given the nature of my mental condition, (I am me, what more can I say) I am expecting a succession of meandering, half baked, conceptual mumbo that starts with a good premise and descends into the hum-drum blog we all know and love (I wouldn't have rubbished blogging if I hadn't read a few first.)
I don't hope to offer advice for life, listen to "wear sunscreen" (Advice, like youth, is probably wasted on the young. Mary Schmich.), or Desiderata if you are after such. But should I talk about life, or more specifically MY life, I may find some solace within the writing of the blog, and that is my goal. I'm not going to get into anything meaty right now but feel I must in future, as this, should be monumental, to me, at the very least.
I could set privacy things and all that but again this random succession of electronic 1's and 0's could be all that is left of me when I die...how long before they delete the blog if I don't write? and its probably fitting that we all etch our mark on this world in anyway we can! It is for this reason that graffiti has merit (not 'graffiti bridge' Prince, clearly). Public beautifiers beware, you could be removing part of humankind's continuing essence. Dissatisfaction and unrest are documented in this way...yes even the "Chris is gay" on the back of the toilet door is to be respected for this reason. Perhaps Chris is indeed gay but what compelled the author to inform us. hate, humour, spite and bile...where else can they have expression, and what should we learn whilst defecating other than this.
I am glad I've taken this step, as small as it is...i just don't know if there will be another, or even if there should be another. I would also like to wish everyone who has started a blog today the very best of luck with it. you don't need encouraging because its all handsome enough. Live like Zorro...leave your mark where you go (but don't necessarily shag Catherine Zeta Jones, unless you are Mr Douglas and then you may feel free, hi Mike, thanks for reading).
PS the Rigveda from whence the blog gets its nomenclature is a sacred Vedic (early basis for the Hindu faith) text that deals with such things as the proforma of sacrifice to the gods. that means something when related to my bilge, but i am not sure what, just yet...
Mr Pat.
I have had conversations about how one should blog, what is important, what is normal, making it significant and all that, but really, who gives a damn. Its not going to be written for people to read. I have a lot of pointless crap in my head and there is nowhere else for it to go. Given the nature of my mental condition, (I am me, what more can I say) I am expecting a succession of meandering, half baked, conceptual mumbo that starts with a good premise and descends into the hum-drum blog we all know and love (I wouldn't have rubbished blogging if I hadn't read a few first.)
I don't hope to offer advice for life, listen to "wear sunscreen" (Advice, like youth, is probably wasted on the young. Mary Schmich.), or Desiderata if you are after such. But should I talk about life, or more specifically MY life, I may find some solace within the writing of the blog, and that is my goal. I'm not going to get into anything meaty right now but feel I must in future, as this, should be monumental, to me, at the very least.
I could set privacy things and all that but again this random succession of electronic 1's and 0's could be all that is left of me when I die...how long before they delete the blog if I don't write? and its probably fitting that we all etch our mark on this world in anyway we can! It is for this reason that graffiti has merit (not 'graffiti bridge' Prince, clearly). Public beautifiers beware, you could be removing part of humankind's continuing essence. Dissatisfaction and unrest are documented in this way...yes even the "Chris is gay" on the back of the toilet door is to be respected for this reason. Perhaps Chris is indeed gay but what compelled the author to inform us. hate, humour, spite and bile...where else can they have expression, and what should we learn whilst defecating other than this.
I am glad I've taken this step, as small as it is...i just don't know if there will be another, or even if there should be another. I would also like to wish everyone who has started a blog today the very best of luck with it. you don't need encouraging because its all handsome enough. Live like Zorro...leave your mark where you go (but don't necessarily shag Catherine Zeta Jones, unless you are Mr Douglas and then you may feel free, hi Mike, thanks for reading).
PS the Rigveda from whence the blog gets its nomenclature is a sacred Vedic (early basis for the Hindu faith) text that deals with such things as the proforma of sacrifice to the gods. that means something when related to my bilge, but i am not sure what, just yet...
Mr Pat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
