I have not suggested a new writing exercise in a while, but I thought of one tonight, so here it is. Like the other writing exercises it focuses on being creative without morbidity and despair. You'll see that this one is on the edge, but the reason is that whether it is on the edge or not is entirely up to you. Thus the two choices you make in writing this story (or script or outline) should lead you to exploring your own optimism, but also illuminate some unhelpful shadows.
1. The scene: There is a planet inhabited entirely by robots. They are aware, purposeful, and have organized themselves into a coherent and one might even say "contented" existence.
The first challenge: What would a "contented" society of robots be like, to you, in your mind? You could make a myriad of choices regarding how this "coherent and content" robot society would be organized, how sophisticated they are programmed, and whether they are creative.
2. The situation, ie, the plot tension: They know they are robots, but they have no record of how they came into being. One day they find a fragment of information that states that they will all melt down and turn into slag on an exact day in the future. There is no further information such as why and exactly how that it will happen; only that it is a certainty.
The second challenge: What do they do?
Again, there is a myriad of choices you could make as you think about how the robotic society you created "would, will and should" react to this news.
Use this exercise to learn the boundary between edgy and morbid, danger and despair, the actual meaning of life and whether mechanics ever are actually "life" in any fashion, and creative problem solving (on the robots' behalf) ha.
Showing posts with label Life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Life. Show all posts
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Friday, January 2, 2009
Correction about frozen embryo confusion
I have read that some very loving and well meaning Catholics have trouble with Catholic doctrine opposing the creation and use of human embryos. For example, these Catholics question why they should not "rescue" frozen embryos that were created for someone else's in vitro fertilization and is no longer needed, and thus are kept frozen indefinitely or discarded.
I think people need to be very clear about one thing before the dialogue (and disagreement) continues.
The Church is correct to state that frozen embryos have "dignity." This is a very precise word that does not imply they have a soul. As I've blogged about this before, but to re-summarize, a soul is created by God and given to an embryo at the moment that it is created and "quickens." This means that the embryo must be attached to the mother's womb and making its first cell division of life. God does not put souls in inanimate objects, such as a frozen embryo. The Church is very wise to use the term "dignity" because even though the frozen embryo is not yet living it is full of the potential for a human real life and thus it has the full dignity of its potential. As such it must be guarded as diligently as a living embryo. This is why the Church correctly opposes the existence of frozen embryos, regardless of the good intentions of the would-be parents. When one has a frozen embryo one has in uncommitted hands the full potential of a life with dignity. Fortunately God, in his wisdom, does not allow humans to play God and have souls placed in frozen inanimate potential humans.
Thus someone who "rescues" a frozen embryo cannot do so by justifying that the embryo has a frozen soul in there. Good grief, humans have already made a horror show of life, can you imagine if souls were actually "freezable" in embryos? Only humans can think of such a scenario, not God.
Having said that, even "without a soul" the embryo is entitled to full dignity because it, like all embryos, are a "promise" from God, a promise that a human life with soul comes into being if the embryo is unfrozen, implanted in a woman and quickens into life. If the embryo does not naturally take to the placenta and quicken then it never received the soul.
Thus I fully understand why the Church is discouraging the enabling of what they consider to be an initial wrong, the creation of a "just in case we ever want to use it" embryo that is frozen and thus robbed of its dignity, with a questionable but well intentioned intervention of adopting a frozen embryo and implanting it.
The Church is correctly concerned of two problems with frozen embryo adoption. One is that humans assume that they can invoke an embryo and a soul and freeze it, thus making people who are horrified at this scenario feel pressured to act to "rescue the frozen soul." That is science fiction, not reality. No souls are frozen in human embryos. So the Church is worried that frozen embryo rescuers have an erroneous and very painful and alarming view of the frozen embryo as not just having dignity, which it has, but a trapped frozen soul, which it does not.
The second problem the Church is concerned with is providing a moral escape hatch for an immoral practice. Thus instead of those who produce frozen embryos having the onus on them of doing something wrong, the faithful are felt that if they don't intervene with adoption that they are allowing a horror to continue (the embryo being frozen indefinitely or discarded). To use an example, the comedy magazine "National Lampoon" once had on the cover the photograph of a cute dog with a gun being held to its head, the caption reading "Buy this magazine or we will shoot this dog!" That was, obviously, an example of subversive humor, satire and irony rolled into one. This was a long time ago but I think I remember that in the inside of the magazine they had a photograph of the dog lying down with the caption, "We shot it anyway."
This is a trivial but wise in human understanding, this ironic humor from years ago, of how to "transfer guilt and complicity." It is one of Satan's favorite tools. It allows someone to initiate the sin and then force through guilt and good intentions someone else to take "moral" responsibility for "fixing" the original wrong and sin. The Church is correctly very alert and wise to this tool of Satan's, to transfer guilt from the guilty to the innocent.
Trust the judgment of the Church for they know well this device. Refuse to be the one who is "handed the guilt" of someone else's wrong doing, bad judgment or sin.
This is not to say that someone who adopts a frozen embryo and brings a child to term has now committed the sin of the people who created the frozen embryo in the first place. However, they have inadvertently provided moral "cover" to the people who did so, not in God's eyes, but in the secular world's eyes, thus removing impetus to re-evaluate and correct a moral problem such as frozen embryos. This is nothing new except in the subtlety of the temptation to take responsibility for "fixing" someone else's ongoing wrong.
This is an important distinction. You can fix a wrong or a sin that has happened and is completed. You cannot fix a wrong or a sin that is ongoing. The ongoing sin, wrong or error must be re-evaluated and corrected, not enabled by the just taking responsibility for perpetuation of the actions of the unjust.
For example, you would rescue a starving person and feed them. But you would not agree to allow a family to starve their child, and you visit once a week to give the child just enough food to keep on clinging to life. That is the difference between correcting a wrong and enabling a wrong. In such a scenario the abusers could argue that you agree that starvation of a child is acceptable, and that if the child dies it is your fault because you did not show up on time for the once a week giving of just enough sustenance for the child to continue to survive.
Listen to the Church, for she is wise in these ways of Satan and of weak and sinful humans. Do not accept responsibility for a wrong that is ongoing and if anything increasing.
I hope that you have found this helpful; this transfer of guilt from the unjust to the just is one of the fundamental moral crises of modern humanity and one must be wise and vigilant to not co-depend and enable error, bad judgment (even if "well intended") and ultimately sinfulness and lack of dignity throughout the whole process of life.
AND, no, I would not "feel different" about it if it were "my own embryos." If anything I would be more determined that they should be discarded since I have never given permission for my eggs to be kept and frozen, nor would I have ever given permission, nor would I have ever given permission for being part of a frozen embryo. Thus if anyone did that "behind my back" as the result of the surgeries I had, I would be the first to insist that they be respectfully discarded because the only reason someone does this type of thing behind someone's back is for occult reasons. I would never consider for one second having a "different" view of this matter and if anything, I would point to the grave moral peril that all who engage in these activities are in.
I think people need to be very clear about one thing before the dialogue (and disagreement) continues.
The Church is correct to state that frozen embryos have "dignity." This is a very precise word that does not imply they have a soul. As I've blogged about this before, but to re-summarize, a soul is created by God and given to an embryo at the moment that it is created and "quickens." This means that the embryo must be attached to the mother's womb and making its first cell division of life. God does not put souls in inanimate objects, such as a frozen embryo. The Church is very wise to use the term "dignity" because even though the frozen embryo is not yet living it is full of the potential for a human real life and thus it has the full dignity of its potential. As such it must be guarded as diligently as a living embryo. This is why the Church correctly opposes the existence of frozen embryos, regardless of the good intentions of the would-be parents. When one has a frozen embryo one has in uncommitted hands the full potential of a life with dignity. Fortunately God, in his wisdom, does not allow humans to play God and have souls placed in frozen inanimate potential humans.
Thus someone who "rescues" a frozen embryo cannot do so by justifying that the embryo has a frozen soul in there. Good grief, humans have already made a horror show of life, can you imagine if souls were actually "freezable" in embryos? Only humans can think of such a scenario, not God.
Having said that, even "without a soul" the embryo is entitled to full dignity because it, like all embryos, are a "promise" from God, a promise that a human life with soul comes into being if the embryo is unfrozen, implanted in a woman and quickens into life. If the embryo does not naturally take to the placenta and quicken then it never received the soul.
Thus I fully understand why the Church is discouraging the enabling of what they consider to be an initial wrong, the creation of a "just in case we ever want to use it" embryo that is frozen and thus robbed of its dignity, with a questionable but well intentioned intervention of adopting a frozen embryo and implanting it.
The Church is correctly concerned of two problems with frozen embryo adoption. One is that humans assume that they can invoke an embryo and a soul and freeze it, thus making people who are horrified at this scenario feel pressured to act to "rescue the frozen soul." That is science fiction, not reality. No souls are frozen in human embryos. So the Church is worried that frozen embryo rescuers have an erroneous and very painful and alarming view of the frozen embryo as not just having dignity, which it has, but a trapped frozen soul, which it does not.
The second problem the Church is concerned with is providing a moral escape hatch for an immoral practice. Thus instead of those who produce frozen embryos having the onus on them of doing something wrong, the faithful are felt that if they don't intervene with adoption that they are allowing a horror to continue (the embryo being frozen indefinitely or discarded). To use an example, the comedy magazine "National Lampoon" once had on the cover the photograph of a cute dog with a gun being held to its head, the caption reading "Buy this magazine or we will shoot this dog!" That was, obviously, an example of subversive humor, satire and irony rolled into one. This was a long time ago but I think I remember that in the inside of the magazine they had a photograph of the dog lying down with the caption, "We shot it anyway."
This is a trivial but wise in human understanding, this ironic humor from years ago, of how to "transfer guilt and complicity." It is one of Satan's favorite tools. It allows someone to initiate the sin and then force through guilt and good intentions someone else to take "moral" responsibility for "fixing" the original wrong and sin. The Church is correctly very alert and wise to this tool of Satan's, to transfer guilt from the guilty to the innocent.
Trust the judgment of the Church for they know well this device. Refuse to be the one who is "handed the guilt" of someone else's wrong doing, bad judgment or sin.
This is not to say that someone who adopts a frozen embryo and brings a child to term has now committed the sin of the people who created the frozen embryo in the first place. However, they have inadvertently provided moral "cover" to the people who did so, not in God's eyes, but in the secular world's eyes, thus removing impetus to re-evaluate and correct a moral problem such as frozen embryos. This is nothing new except in the subtlety of the temptation to take responsibility for "fixing" someone else's ongoing wrong.
This is an important distinction. You can fix a wrong or a sin that has happened and is completed. You cannot fix a wrong or a sin that is ongoing. The ongoing sin, wrong or error must be re-evaluated and corrected, not enabled by the just taking responsibility for perpetuation of the actions of the unjust.
For example, you would rescue a starving person and feed them. But you would not agree to allow a family to starve their child, and you visit once a week to give the child just enough food to keep on clinging to life. That is the difference between correcting a wrong and enabling a wrong. In such a scenario the abusers could argue that you agree that starvation of a child is acceptable, and that if the child dies it is your fault because you did not show up on time for the once a week giving of just enough sustenance for the child to continue to survive.
Listen to the Church, for she is wise in these ways of Satan and of weak and sinful humans. Do not accept responsibility for a wrong that is ongoing and if anything increasing.
I hope that you have found this helpful; this transfer of guilt from the unjust to the just is one of the fundamental moral crises of modern humanity and one must be wise and vigilant to not co-depend and enable error, bad judgment (even if "well intended") and ultimately sinfulness and lack of dignity throughout the whole process of life.
AND, no, I would not "feel different" about it if it were "my own embryos." If anything I would be more determined that they should be discarded since I have never given permission for my eggs to be kept and frozen, nor would I have ever given permission, nor would I have ever given permission for being part of a frozen embryo. Thus if anyone did that "behind my back" as the result of the surgeries I had, I would be the first to insist that they be respectfully discarded because the only reason someone does this type of thing behind someone's back is for occult reasons. I would never consider for one second having a "different" view of this matter and if anything, I would point to the grave moral peril that all who engage in these activities are in.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Another thought about Part 1 of 4
I want to really emphasize one point about what I discussed in the previous post regarding the two wives of Jacob and their children. This is of great importance for humans to better understand not only God, but also life, how to be genuine, and also realistic, about life.
Jacob, who becomes renamed to Israel by the unnamed angel of God whom he encounters, is the patriarch of the twelve tribes of Israel. But this is a human story also, of a husband, of a wife, and of a father, and of a mother. Too many modern humans fall for the their own propaganda that they can "have it all." But the very patriarch of Israel "did not have it all," even as God guided him. Nor did his wives. His first wife had him as her husband, and loved him with her whole heart and soul, yet he did not love her. Yet she was remembered by God in her sorrow and given the first of many children for her honor and joy. So she had the love and blessing of children, but not what modern humans would think of as a loving husband, romantic, personal love. Jacob did love his second wife (she being the one he wanted all along, and he angled to have her even though under law the first older sister had to be married first) and so I guess modern humans would "root" for her, "Yeah! That's 'true love.'" Yet she suffered for many years because she could not bear children, until God had pity on her sorrow and made her fertile. See, the one who actually had Jacob's "romantic love" was not happy because she was envious that her unloved sister had children! Genesis 30:1 When Rachel saw that she failed to bear children to Jacob, she became envious of her sister. She said to Jacob, "Give me children or I shall die!" In anger Jacob retorted, "Can I take the place of God, who has denied you the fruit of the womb?"
Jacob's romantic love for Rachel was not enough for her, and she wanted children, not from love of children, but from envy of her sister who had children, but not the love of her husband. Yet, even when God, who understood her suffering, granted her children, the children she received were not enough for her and she prayed for "another son" (Genesis 30:24), even naming the one she had in reflection of her wanting yet another son, as the one was still wet being born! And she did receive another son, dying in giving childbirth. And thus Jacob still had the wife he honored but did not love, while the wife he loved died in the common risk of the time, childbirth, especially when in the middle of nomadic travel. So there you have it. Who "had it all?"
Modern humans, infested with feminist propaganda and men's hedonistic tendencies, who remain puerile and immature far into what should be their adult years, demand and brain wash others that they should have more and more and more, and only when they want it, not when God sends it. They find someone who loves them, but want someone "hotter." They want children, if at all, on their own timetable, aborting those they don't want. They think their hot and rich husbands will live forever, providing for them, and then they fall in war, in work, or doing "extreme sport," or of a heart attack as they slave away in the corporate world. For some reason modern humans think they should have it "all," when the humans who were blessed with God who walked side by side with them, as documented in the Bible, did not "have it all."
I hope that people will read what I wrote, the summary of the children of Jacob, and yes, read the actual scripture too, and think about this. This is one reason why the Bible does "contain all the answers to life," because if one ponders the deeper, yet obvious, meanings, one understands more about the reality, joys and sorrow, infinite possibilities (through God) yet real limitation, of life. Anyone who really understands the story of the love and losses of Jacob, Leah and Rachel would never have fallen for the propaganda of modern times. And they would have remained open to the obvious gifts of love, both romantic and the love of children, that God does bestow in abundance when it does occur.
Jacob, who becomes renamed to Israel by the unnamed angel of God whom he encounters, is the patriarch of the twelve tribes of Israel. But this is a human story also, of a husband, of a wife, and of a father, and of a mother. Too many modern humans fall for the their own propaganda that they can "have it all." But the very patriarch of Israel "did not have it all," even as God guided him. Nor did his wives. His first wife had him as her husband, and loved him with her whole heart and soul, yet he did not love her. Yet she was remembered by God in her sorrow and given the first of many children for her honor and joy. So she had the love and blessing of children, but not what modern humans would think of as a loving husband, romantic, personal love. Jacob did love his second wife (she being the one he wanted all along, and he angled to have her even though under law the first older sister had to be married first) and so I guess modern humans would "root" for her, "Yeah! That's 'true love.'" Yet she suffered for many years because she could not bear children, until God had pity on her sorrow and made her fertile. See, the one who actually had Jacob's "romantic love" was not happy because she was envious that her unloved sister had children! Genesis 30:1 When Rachel saw that she failed to bear children to Jacob, she became envious of her sister. She said to Jacob, "Give me children or I shall die!" In anger Jacob retorted, "Can I take the place of God, who has denied you the fruit of the womb?"
Jacob's romantic love for Rachel was not enough for her, and she wanted children, not from love of children, but from envy of her sister who had children, but not the love of her husband. Yet, even when God, who understood her suffering, granted her children, the children she received were not enough for her and she prayed for "another son" (Genesis 30:24), even naming the one she had in reflection of her wanting yet another son, as the one was still wet being born! And she did receive another son, dying in giving childbirth. And thus Jacob still had the wife he honored but did not love, while the wife he loved died in the common risk of the time, childbirth, especially when in the middle of nomadic travel. So there you have it. Who "had it all?"
Modern humans, infested with feminist propaganda and men's hedonistic tendencies, who remain puerile and immature far into what should be their adult years, demand and brain wash others that they should have more and more and more, and only when they want it, not when God sends it. They find someone who loves them, but want someone "hotter." They want children, if at all, on their own timetable, aborting those they don't want. They think their hot and rich husbands will live forever, providing for them, and then they fall in war, in work, or doing "extreme sport," or of a heart attack as they slave away in the corporate world. For some reason modern humans think they should have it "all," when the humans who were blessed with God who walked side by side with them, as documented in the Bible, did not "have it all."
I hope that people will read what I wrote, the summary of the children of Jacob, and yes, read the actual scripture too, and think about this. This is one reason why the Bible does "contain all the answers to life," because if one ponders the deeper, yet obvious, meanings, one understands more about the reality, joys and sorrow, infinite possibilities (through God) yet real limitation, of life. Anyone who really understands the story of the love and losses of Jacob, Leah and Rachel would never have fallen for the propaganda of modern times. And they would have remained open to the obvious gifts of love, both romantic and the love of children, that God does bestow in abundance when it does occur.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Election advice
People often wonder who I vote for, when I do vote (I've relocated a lot so my record has been spotty as I'm driven from pillar to post the past 10 years or so). It does not matter who I vote for. I'm not saying that voting itself does not matter; it does matter very deeply and many patriots died for that right and privilege. I urge everyone to vote but consider this advice.
The country (or state or city) "deserves" whoever is elected. Even when elections are "stolen," the country or other government entity gets exactly who they deserve. So there is no wrong election, even when an immoral ignoramus is elected to office, because for whatever reasons, the electorate has sunk to the level that deserves that candidate to win. Often I would vote for the candidate I thought the country deserved to get, if you know what I mean.
Having said that, this is why this country MUST stop looking at the idiots in government to regain the morality that this country once had and has stamped on, polluted, and thrown away. Look at abortion as the key issue. I am totally against abortion, but I'm not proud of how pro life people have abandoned it as a government/legal/rights adjudicated issue. I have been saying from the first day after Roe v. Wade that abortion must be stopped at the grassroots level. Then it will not matter if it is "legal," if virtually no one goes for an abortion. Let them have their damned "right" to an abortion if that's the way the country votes and plays it. But if for the past thirty years those who are pro-life had economically and spiritually "adopted" mothers about to deliver and sponsor their babies we'd have a fraction of the aborts we have today. More money and treasure has been pissed away in this country on garbage, such as entertainment, usury interest rates and finance fees, consumerism, and "globalization" than would have been needed to pay pregnant women to not abort and to either raise their baby with support, give the baby to adopting parents, or to have quality orphanages with living in families who raise children in real group settings and love them as parents. If pro-life people had banded together thirty years ago we would have made abortion "rare and repugnant" because most girls and women would have chosen the alternatives I listed above for you. You will never end abortion if all you do is vote for pro life candidates and then give your money to trash causes and consumerism instead of helping out a couple that is in a pregnancy jam.
The country (or state or city) "deserves" whoever is elected. Even when elections are "stolen," the country or other government entity gets exactly who they deserve. So there is no wrong election, even when an immoral ignoramus is elected to office, because for whatever reasons, the electorate has sunk to the level that deserves that candidate to win. Often I would vote for the candidate I thought the country deserved to get, if you know what I mean.
Having said that, this is why this country MUST stop looking at the idiots in government to regain the morality that this country once had and has stamped on, polluted, and thrown away. Look at abortion as the key issue. I am totally against abortion, but I'm not proud of how pro life people have abandoned it as a government/legal/rights adjudicated issue. I have been saying from the first day after Roe v. Wade that abortion must be stopped at the grassroots level. Then it will not matter if it is "legal," if virtually no one goes for an abortion. Let them have their damned "right" to an abortion if that's the way the country votes and plays it. But if for the past thirty years those who are pro-life had economically and spiritually "adopted" mothers about to deliver and sponsor their babies we'd have a fraction of the aborts we have today. More money and treasure has been pissed away in this country on garbage, such as entertainment, usury interest rates and finance fees, consumerism, and "globalization" than would have been needed to pay pregnant women to not abort and to either raise their baby with support, give the baby to adopting parents, or to have quality orphanages with living in families who raise children in real group settings and love them as parents. If pro-life people had banded together thirty years ago we would have made abortion "rare and repugnant" because most girls and women would have chosen the alternatives I listed above for you. You will never end abortion if all you do is vote for pro life candidates and then give your money to trash causes and consumerism instead of helping out a couple that is in a pregnancy jam.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
The Meaning of Life
It is not surprising to observe that humanity is in a terrible time of crisis. There are many reasons for the specific crises but there are two underlying causes of all of human’s problems and questionable future. One is diminishing rather than increasing understanding of what a human being is and the human’s relationship with God. The other cause is the wounded (imperfect) nature of human being, which only increases as humans think they are becoming more superior. This blog posting is meant to shed some loving but very clear light on “what is the meaning of life.”
When a human is conceived, the moment that the embryo “quickens” is when God sends a soul into that human’s body. Quickening refers to the attachment of the embryo to the mother’s inner uterine lining, and then its first growth to indicate the process of life is engaged, which is the first division and growth of cells. At the moment that the embryo is attached to the wall of the mother’s womb, it goes into “growth” mode, where cells start to divide and multiply in order to start the growth of the human. It is at that very moment that the embryo is considered at the start of its human life and is “viable” in God’s eyes. At that first step of growth, the quickening, God sends a newly born soul into the body plus assigns a guardian angel. That is the beginning of the life of a human in God’s eyes. The guardian angel, by the way, is the one who will shepherd and guide an infant who dies before being self aware to heaven. So no infant, even the pre-born, dies alone, and they are brought to heaven by their angel.
Now, here is the surprising part, though it should not be if anyone really reads the scriptures and thinks about it. With that first implanted and quickened embryo starts an eternal life. Once a soul is created it is eternal. So the implantation and quickening of an embryo, receiving a soul, embarks on an eternal life. The soul starts out in a body, yes, one that will live on average to be at the most one hundred and twenty years in length, as stated in the Bible thousands of years before geriatric medicine was invented. God put a “cap” on human’s life because of original sin, where humans demonstrated that they think they can put their will and bad behavior ahead of God. Now that’s not punishment, but compassion as I’ll explain in a bit. First let me remind the readers that one hundred and twenty years is a good long time, but not even a speck of sand in size compared to the infinite timelessness of eternity. So in reality, all of a human’s lifetime, whether one hundred and twenty years, or dying before one is even given birth to, is actually the preborn infancy of one’s eternal life. In other words, one’s entire life is the process leading up to being born, and when one dies, one is born to God.
The normal gestation of a human baby is nine months, until the baby leaves the womb and becomes a physically separate human being. What I am explaining that everyone’s lifetime is that “nine months.” If a person lives to 65 years old, he has gone through his “nine months” in the womb. If a child lives to only 10 years old, she has gone through her “nine months” in the womb. If a lady lives to 120 years old, she has gone through her “nine months” in the womb. If a man lives to 99 years old he has gone through his “nine months” in the womb. If a baby is aborted, he or she has gone through her “nine months” in the womb. The life span that each person lives is their time in the womb before being born to eternal life. This is why it’s not a matter of being “fair” or “unfair” as to the span of a person’s physical life, because all are born equally into God when they die and pass from this life. God is not being “cruel” but rather, is guaranteeing the ultimate equality. No matter if pre-born or born, if young or old, the entire span of a person’s life is simply the giving of a soul and an angel to a new person and their gestation before being born to eternal life.
Jesus often spoke of the harvest, likening each human to fruit, or grain that grows from a seed until harvest. It is then that the worthiness of the harvest is assessed for the nature of its eternal life. Some people will be as ripe and healthy grains of wheat and they will be harvested for eternal life in heaven. Others will be like an apple which may be small and tart in taste, yet they have in them their own vigorous seeds for their children walking in righteousness… and these apples will be harvested for eternal life in heaven. Some people will be like a pomegranate that grows beautifully, but is bruised by life and perhaps trampled upon, or thrown to the hogs. Those people will be harvested into heaven. But woe to the people who allow worms to grow within them, or who chose to be weeds. For the willfully rotten fruit and the weeds that grow within the wheat will be harvested and thrown into the eternal fire. The Qur’an is consistent with the Bible and with the teachings of Jesus because the Qur’an often describes heaven as the garden that thrives where the righteous are at rest.
So whenever people, either faithful or atheist, are bitter toward God because of the shortness or hardness of a human’s life, they totally do not understand that a lifetime is an “easy” or a “hard” birth, dependent on the circumstances of one’s life. Let’s look again at the trodden pomegranate person example, and imagine this person as a woman suffering in Sudan. Her entire life is a hard birth, and an unjust one, because she is being afflicted by other people. As much as the fruit of her life is being bruised, she will find salvation at the end of her hard birth. But those who oppress her are blackening and rotting with worms their own harvest of their own birth, and they will be flung into eternal fire by angry and righteous angels who will harvest them out.
Therefore while there is no consolation for injustice, there is consolation in the knowledge that this physical life is “only” the birth process, hard or easy, for eternal life. This does not mean that like a human baby in the mother’s womb, however, one is only along for the ride and can claim the ignorance of the baby for whatever deeds one performs. Adam and Eve threw that right away as they decided they could make their own choices. Animals still have that right, because all that they do is innocent, because it is for their survival and reproductive imperative. They are not trying to outplay or outwit God. Yes, Jesus Christ died as the Messiah to wash away, with baptism, original sin. But remember an event from the life of Christ that many have puzzled over. This is when Christ cursed the fig tree that did not bear fruit when Christ was hungry and needed food. The meaning of that event was not that Christ was “unfair to the tree, who has rights” or “in a bad mood” or is “discriminating against figs” but to underscore that food is no good if it is not available when the people hunger. Likewise, all people are equal in their opportunity to yield a harvest that through grace and works merit heaven. Grace gives every human being a soul and an angel, and the opportunity to be righteous and good, and yield a good fruit or grain for harvest, even if humble, bruised, or small. Grace provides that potential and the garden bed. Works determine if the fruit is at the end rotted or at the end worthy of eternal sustenance. The deeds that one does determines if a human chooses to allow themselves to grow as a weed, from start to finish, or to start as a good fruit, but allow its heart to be blackened and rotted through ill deeds toward others, or one’s own internal corruption.
This brings me back to the comment about 120 years being, in general, the maximum to be hoped for life span being a gift rather than a punishment. If you think about it, particularly as society is evolving toward more selfishness and depravity, a long life span only allows the fruit to be exposed to more chance to rot, or to be replaced by weeds. I’ve noticed that even good people are increasingly sucked into the spiritual sewage around the neighbor’s garden. When the great Patriarchs of the Old Testament lived for hundreds of years-sometimes to amazing ages-that is because they allowed their personal garden’s fruit to be permeated with the Holy Spirit, through the physical presence of God, who still walked much among them. So these few people could live a long life span and not risk being corrupted over time because they permeated themselves with only the wholesomeness of the Holy Spirit. Times changed, though, with the bringing of humankind’s “civilization.” I’ve noticed that those who are now young or middle age who crave cures and life lengthening technologies increasingly do not look forward with faith and joy in their birth into God, but want to seek self gratifying activities to go on forever. It is one thing to be kind to the elderly and prolong life, which I completely agree with. It’s another thing to view extended lifetimes as being the “be all and end all” of one’s own self gratification.
So I hope that this blog post causes a much needed radical shift in thinking to clarify what is the meaning of life. Physical life is the initiation of one unique soul, accompanied by an angel, which is a birth process during the lifespan that leads to a harvesting into eternal life. If the person has a birth, easy or hard, that yields good fruit, then the person is harvested into heaven and eternal life of bliss and rest. The vast majority of people in heaven didn’t make themselves the biggest, smartest, or most successful apple in the barrel. Many were humble people living simple lives, trying to do the best they could, raising or being participants in families, who simply remembered that they are the harvest, not the harvester. When a person tries to be the biggest, smartest, or most successful apple in the barrel, like Adam and Eve, they start confusing who is the harvest and who is God, the harvester. This is not so difficult to understand, as the Bible and the Qur’an both spell it out through the generations. Because of human’s inevitable egotism, however, it seems to be increasingly difficult to understand and to live as the good harvest, in the process of a lifetime of being birthed. It’s not exactly a secret. Both the Bible and the Qur’an speak of Prophets who explained and warned, yet were persecuted and thus harvested as good fruit by those who allow their own yield to be rotted. This is why the Catholic Church preaches so much about the blood of martyrs in the harvest. If is not a need to be gory, but rather recognition that the martyrs set the ultimate example of their understanding that life, long or short, is a birthing that brings on death a good harvest, if righteously lived. Even children went willingly to martyrdom, and it’s not because they didn’t have video games to self actualize in their time. Christian martyrs demonstrated that long or short life, easy or hard, that the time alive on earth is of vital importance because it is the gestation of the fruit at the end of life.
When a human is conceived, the moment that the embryo “quickens” is when God sends a soul into that human’s body. Quickening refers to the attachment of the embryo to the mother’s inner uterine lining, and then its first growth to indicate the process of life is engaged, which is the first division and growth of cells. At the moment that the embryo is attached to the wall of the mother’s womb, it goes into “growth” mode, where cells start to divide and multiply in order to start the growth of the human. It is at that very moment that the embryo is considered at the start of its human life and is “viable” in God’s eyes. At that first step of growth, the quickening, God sends a newly born soul into the body plus assigns a guardian angel. That is the beginning of the life of a human in God’s eyes. The guardian angel, by the way, is the one who will shepherd and guide an infant who dies before being self aware to heaven. So no infant, even the pre-born, dies alone, and they are brought to heaven by their angel.
Now, here is the surprising part, though it should not be if anyone really reads the scriptures and thinks about it. With that first implanted and quickened embryo starts an eternal life. Once a soul is created it is eternal. So the implantation and quickening of an embryo, receiving a soul, embarks on an eternal life. The soul starts out in a body, yes, one that will live on average to be at the most one hundred and twenty years in length, as stated in the Bible thousands of years before geriatric medicine was invented. God put a “cap” on human’s life because of original sin, where humans demonstrated that they think they can put their will and bad behavior ahead of God. Now that’s not punishment, but compassion as I’ll explain in a bit. First let me remind the readers that one hundred and twenty years is a good long time, but not even a speck of sand in size compared to the infinite timelessness of eternity. So in reality, all of a human’s lifetime, whether one hundred and twenty years, or dying before one is even given birth to, is actually the preborn infancy of one’s eternal life. In other words, one’s entire life is the process leading up to being born, and when one dies, one is born to God.
The normal gestation of a human baby is nine months, until the baby leaves the womb and becomes a physically separate human being. What I am explaining that everyone’s lifetime is that “nine months.” If a person lives to 65 years old, he has gone through his “nine months” in the womb. If a child lives to only 10 years old, she has gone through her “nine months” in the womb. If a lady lives to 120 years old, she has gone through her “nine months” in the womb. If a man lives to 99 years old he has gone through his “nine months” in the womb. If a baby is aborted, he or she has gone through her “nine months” in the womb. The life span that each person lives is their time in the womb before being born to eternal life. This is why it’s not a matter of being “fair” or “unfair” as to the span of a person’s physical life, because all are born equally into God when they die and pass from this life. God is not being “cruel” but rather, is guaranteeing the ultimate equality. No matter if pre-born or born, if young or old, the entire span of a person’s life is simply the giving of a soul and an angel to a new person and their gestation before being born to eternal life.
Jesus often spoke of the harvest, likening each human to fruit, or grain that grows from a seed until harvest. It is then that the worthiness of the harvest is assessed for the nature of its eternal life. Some people will be as ripe and healthy grains of wheat and they will be harvested for eternal life in heaven. Others will be like an apple which may be small and tart in taste, yet they have in them their own vigorous seeds for their children walking in righteousness… and these apples will be harvested for eternal life in heaven. Some people will be like a pomegranate that grows beautifully, but is bruised by life and perhaps trampled upon, or thrown to the hogs. Those people will be harvested into heaven. But woe to the people who allow worms to grow within them, or who chose to be weeds. For the willfully rotten fruit and the weeds that grow within the wheat will be harvested and thrown into the eternal fire. The Qur’an is consistent with the Bible and with the teachings of Jesus because the Qur’an often describes heaven as the garden that thrives where the righteous are at rest.
So whenever people, either faithful or atheist, are bitter toward God because of the shortness or hardness of a human’s life, they totally do not understand that a lifetime is an “easy” or a “hard” birth, dependent on the circumstances of one’s life. Let’s look again at the trodden pomegranate person example, and imagine this person as a woman suffering in Sudan. Her entire life is a hard birth, and an unjust one, because she is being afflicted by other people. As much as the fruit of her life is being bruised, she will find salvation at the end of her hard birth. But those who oppress her are blackening and rotting with worms their own harvest of their own birth, and they will be flung into eternal fire by angry and righteous angels who will harvest them out.
Therefore while there is no consolation for injustice, there is consolation in the knowledge that this physical life is “only” the birth process, hard or easy, for eternal life. This does not mean that like a human baby in the mother’s womb, however, one is only along for the ride and can claim the ignorance of the baby for whatever deeds one performs. Adam and Eve threw that right away as they decided they could make their own choices. Animals still have that right, because all that they do is innocent, because it is for their survival and reproductive imperative. They are not trying to outplay or outwit God. Yes, Jesus Christ died as the Messiah to wash away, with baptism, original sin. But remember an event from the life of Christ that many have puzzled over. This is when Christ cursed the fig tree that did not bear fruit when Christ was hungry and needed food. The meaning of that event was not that Christ was “unfair to the tree, who has rights” or “in a bad mood” or is “discriminating against figs” but to underscore that food is no good if it is not available when the people hunger. Likewise, all people are equal in their opportunity to yield a harvest that through grace and works merit heaven. Grace gives every human being a soul and an angel, and the opportunity to be righteous and good, and yield a good fruit or grain for harvest, even if humble, bruised, or small. Grace provides that potential and the garden bed. Works determine if the fruit is at the end rotted or at the end worthy of eternal sustenance. The deeds that one does determines if a human chooses to allow themselves to grow as a weed, from start to finish, or to start as a good fruit, but allow its heart to be blackened and rotted through ill deeds toward others, or one’s own internal corruption.
This brings me back to the comment about 120 years being, in general, the maximum to be hoped for life span being a gift rather than a punishment. If you think about it, particularly as society is evolving toward more selfishness and depravity, a long life span only allows the fruit to be exposed to more chance to rot, or to be replaced by weeds. I’ve noticed that even good people are increasingly sucked into the spiritual sewage around the neighbor’s garden. When the great Patriarchs of the Old Testament lived for hundreds of years-sometimes to amazing ages-that is because they allowed their personal garden’s fruit to be permeated with the Holy Spirit, through the physical presence of God, who still walked much among them. So these few people could live a long life span and not risk being corrupted over time because they permeated themselves with only the wholesomeness of the Holy Spirit. Times changed, though, with the bringing of humankind’s “civilization.” I’ve noticed that those who are now young or middle age who crave cures and life lengthening technologies increasingly do not look forward with faith and joy in their birth into God, but want to seek self gratifying activities to go on forever. It is one thing to be kind to the elderly and prolong life, which I completely agree with. It’s another thing to view extended lifetimes as being the “be all and end all” of one’s own self gratification.
So I hope that this blog post causes a much needed radical shift in thinking to clarify what is the meaning of life. Physical life is the initiation of one unique soul, accompanied by an angel, which is a birth process during the lifespan that leads to a harvesting into eternal life. If the person has a birth, easy or hard, that yields good fruit, then the person is harvested into heaven and eternal life of bliss and rest. The vast majority of people in heaven didn’t make themselves the biggest, smartest, or most successful apple in the barrel. Many were humble people living simple lives, trying to do the best they could, raising or being participants in families, who simply remembered that they are the harvest, not the harvester. When a person tries to be the biggest, smartest, or most successful apple in the barrel, like Adam and Eve, they start confusing who is the harvest and who is God, the harvester. This is not so difficult to understand, as the Bible and the Qur’an both spell it out through the generations. Because of human’s inevitable egotism, however, it seems to be increasingly difficult to understand and to live as the good harvest, in the process of a lifetime of being birthed. It’s not exactly a secret. Both the Bible and the Qur’an speak of Prophets who explained and warned, yet were persecuted and thus harvested as good fruit by those who allow their own yield to be rotted. This is why the Catholic Church preaches so much about the blood of martyrs in the harvest. If is not a need to be gory, but rather recognition that the martyrs set the ultimate example of their understanding that life, long or short, is a birthing that brings on death a good harvest, if righteously lived. Even children went willingly to martyrdom, and it’s not because they didn’t have video games to self actualize in their time. Christian martyrs demonstrated that long or short life, easy or hard, that the time alive on earth is of vital importance because it is the gestation of the fruit at the end of life.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Great dialogue between Pope and author, and my old thoughts!
Hat tip to Kevin Knight at New Advent http://www.newadvent.org/ for this link:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=153041&eng=y
"Franz Michel Willam, the Theologian the Pope Has Rescued from OblivionAuthor in 1932 of a famous life of Christ, he had been forgotten by everyone. Benedict XVI cites him in "Jesus of Nazareth," and an Austrian scholar explains why. Based on unpublished correspondence between the two:" is the lead article, embedding this article following:
"Ratzinger and the "chaplain" theologian. An unpublished correspondence by Philipp Reisinger The Austrian Franz Michel Willam is today certainly the least-known among the authors cited by Benedict XVI in the preface to his book “Jesus of Nazareth.” Who was he? And why does the pope recall him? Only a few know about the correspondence, kept in the convent of Thalbach in Bregenz, Austria, between the university professor Joseph Ratzinger and Franz Michel Willam, who was 33 years older than him."
This is an exciting read, as it shows the process of fruitful thought and dialogue between two of the great biographers and theologians of the life of Jesus Christ.... yet it is from a different and I'd argue a better time of Christian thought. Read the article and you'll see what I mean, this is before the time when there were "dueling intellectuals" and also "I've got to dig up a fossil of Jesus before I believe" "historics."
*******
Another thing I'd like to point out about this article is the discussion of "simplicity:"
snip
"Willam, who had discovered and brought forth simplicity as the dominant idea in Pope John XXIII, presented in this way • in a letter to Bishop Paulus Rusch – what was for him the central passage in Ratzinger’s article: “The theory of simplicity finds in Joseph Ratzinger the following formulation: there exists the simplicity of comfort, which is the simplicity of imprecision, a lack of richness, life, and completeness. There also exists the simplicity of the origin, which is true richness. Renewal is simplicity, not in the sense of a selection or reduction, but rather a simplification in the sense of a becoming-simple, of moving toward that true simplicity which is the mystery of being.”
When I was a freshman in university, in the early 1970's, one of my dorm mates asked me if life was "simple" or "complex." I replied "simple" which surprised her and drove her crazy, since she of course in reflection of those presumptuous times, assumed the answer was "complex." This resulted in a year long informal canvassing by her and others of my friends of their friends and acquaintances of whether they believed life was simple or complex. Nearly everybody replied "complex." When presented with this I'd always reply that they were mistaken, and that life is "simple." This does not mean that one does not find oneself in some very sticky situations indeed, but that does not mean that life is complex. Life is simple and it always has been, but humankind and their thoughts and deeds make it appear to be "complex." The ersatz survey ended as our freshman year concluded and my dorm mate said to me in exasperation, "Life is complex - YOU are simple!"
Hmm. If anything the years continue to show me true. There is God and there is the physical world. There is separation from God and its consequences on human behavior, and there is union with God and it's easing of life's challenges and assurances of being on the path to the Kingdom of God. There is prosperity and there are shortages, of both spiritual and material commodities. There is charity and there is mean spirited withholding. There is a measured span of all mortal beings, and there is God's eternity. Life is simple, for as William references Ratzinger's thought on this, "which is the simplicity of imprecision, a lack of richness, life, and completeness. There also exists the simplicity of the origin, which is true richness..." Life is simple (and thus incredibly rich) in its origin, and then the mission of existing in life is very simple precisely because all is not spelled out for one. One has a life span and one has choices, some that one can make for one's self, and some that are made for one by others. Living life and understanding the simple yet profound relationship between humanity and God is the only certainty. Complexity results from humans' efforts to manipulate, to try to "have it all," and to delude themselves that there is a hidden plan, a map, secret lore that gives them all the "answers" and enables one to know and make the "right choices." Complexity is in human's minds, it is not the nature of life. The simplicity of life is it's beauty and it's power, and to be simple does not mean it is not profound and deep.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=153041&eng=y
"Franz Michel Willam, the Theologian the Pope Has Rescued from OblivionAuthor in 1932 of a famous life of Christ, he had been forgotten by everyone. Benedict XVI cites him in "Jesus of Nazareth," and an Austrian scholar explains why. Based on unpublished correspondence between the two:" is the lead article, embedding this article following:
"Ratzinger and the "chaplain" theologian. An unpublished correspondence by Philipp Reisinger The Austrian Franz Michel Willam is today certainly the least-known among the authors cited by Benedict XVI in the preface to his book “Jesus of Nazareth.” Who was he? And why does the pope recall him? Only a few know about the correspondence, kept in the convent of Thalbach in Bregenz, Austria, between the university professor Joseph Ratzinger and Franz Michel Willam, who was 33 years older than him."
This is an exciting read, as it shows the process of fruitful thought and dialogue between two of the great biographers and theologians of the life of Jesus Christ.... yet it is from a different and I'd argue a better time of Christian thought. Read the article and you'll see what I mean, this is before the time when there were "dueling intellectuals" and also "I've got to dig up a fossil of Jesus before I believe" "historics."
*******
Another thing I'd like to point out about this article is the discussion of "simplicity:"
snip
"Willam, who had discovered and brought forth simplicity as the dominant idea in Pope John XXIII, presented in this way • in a letter to Bishop Paulus Rusch – what was for him the central passage in Ratzinger’s article: “The theory of simplicity finds in Joseph Ratzinger the following formulation: there exists the simplicity of comfort, which is the simplicity of imprecision, a lack of richness, life, and completeness. There also exists the simplicity of the origin, which is true richness. Renewal is simplicity, not in the sense of a selection or reduction, but rather a simplification in the sense of a becoming-simple, of moving toward that true simplicity which is the mystery of being.”
When I was a freshman in university, in the early 1970's, one of my dorm mates asked me if life was "simple" or "complex." I replied "simple" which surprised her and drove her crazy, since she of course in reflection of those presumptuous times, assumed the answer was "complex." This resulted in a year long informal canvassing by her and others of my friends of their friends and acquaintances of whether they believed life was simple or complex. Nearly everybody replied "complex." When presented with this I'd always reply that they were mistaken, and that life is "simple." This does not mean that one does not find oneself in some very sticky situations indeed, but that does not mean that life is complex. Life is simple and it always has been, but humankind and their thoughts and deeds make it appear to be "complex." The ersatz survey ended as our freshman year concluded and my dorm mate said to me in exasperation, "Life is complex - YOU are simple!"
Hmm. If anything the years continue to show me true. There is God and there is the physical world. There is separation from God and its consequences on human behavior, and there is union with God and it's easing of life's challenges and assurances of being on the path to the Kingdom of God. There is prosperity and there are shortages, of both spiritual and material commodities. There is charity and there is mean spirited withholding. There is a measured span of all mortal beings, and there is God's eternity. Life is simple, for as William references Ratzinger's thought on this, "which is the simplicity of imprecision, a lack of richness, life, and completeness. There also exists the simplicity of the origin, which is true richness..." Life is simple (and thus incredibly rich) in its origin, and then the mission of existing in life is very simple precisely because all is not spelled out for one. One has a life span and one has choices, some that one can make for one's self, and some that are made for one by others. Living life and understanding the simple yet profound relationship between humanity and God is the only certainty. Complexity results from humans' efforts to manipulate, to try to "have it all," and to delude themselves that there is a hidden plan, a map, secret lore that gives them all the "answers" and enables one to know and make the "right choices." Complexity is in human's minds, it is not the nature of life. The simplicity of life is it's beauty and it's power, and to be simple does not mean it is not profound and deep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
