While this writing, as all of mine, are of course for all people, I am thinking of your special gifts and potential to serve, young people, as I know that you wish to do.
First, I am so proud at the outpouring of donations that I know many young people are leading in the appeal for funding to help mitigate and eventually rebuild from the disaster in Haiti. You are able to see in this, which I wanted to point out to you, that millions of you donating a little can rock the world. Many of your parents and teachers thought that "good deeds" require big bucks, you know, millionaires who build hospitals to have their name written on it. Notice, by the way, that St Jude in Tennessee is not named the "Danny Thomas" hospital. (Read the story of how Danny Thomas founded this great hospital in perfect humility and prayer.) Anyway, I wanted to point out the obvious to you, dear friends, because you are having your first chance to see how millions of you with a few dollars, Euros or whatever each can create an outflow of goodness that is based in modesty and collective anonymity!
But we are all frustrated at the usual problems with actually getting even a first response of aid at all, after four nights of this disaster, to hundreds of thousands of people. Young people, for some reason the older generations act like every time a disaster hit, they are seeing one for the first time. They come up with the same old bureaucratic processes, the same old infrastructure "barriers," the same old lack of creative logistics, the same old lack of organized grassroot responses. Young people, prepare to sweep that all away, if you all hope to survive, thrive and serve humanity and, of course, God.
As you watch the coverage (and I congratulate CNN for the most continual coverage, for it IS important, and it's NOT a problem "over there") use this as a case study to prepare yourselves for this same model of grassroots leadership that you are using in texting your donations in small but numerous components.
Look at the people and think about all these disasters. What is always lacking? The basics for people clawing by bare hands to get to buried neighbors. That is the first thing people in any disaster need. I mean, am I the only person to think, how hard would it be to airdrop gloves, pickaxes, car jacks, sledge hammers, crowbars, just even the basics to help until the heavy equipment gets there (if ever). Is that a "duh" or what? Do we not admire the strength and calmness of the Haitians who have suffered such a devastation, yet are digging with bare hands day after day? Am I the only Einstein of the obvious here? Could helicopters not have dropped bags of these types of tools collected from average citizens who are concerned, like you? I mean, sheesh, if I had been running this show I would have had every person in a city with a spare hammer or tool take it to a collection point and had it choppered there within hours. Many more people would have been saved if even ONLY that had been done!
So young people, study what you see and think about how, for example, many small collections delivered immediately by air drop in waves would have had immediate benefit and life saving grace.
Think of this in the waves of need. Drop the darn tools that the victims-who are their own first responders-need right away, not the "ideal" that arrives days later if ever. People do not live buried until "the right equipment" shows up.
Then once you have a working system of rapid targeted collection points for a specific need, continue the waves of small but numerous potent deliveries. So the second wave could be of water, food basics, but also lots of tubes of antibiotic cream. Imagine if all the young people in Miami, or Dallas, or any place bought a tube of antibiotic cream and took it to a place that bundled it into sacks of several hundred at a time and then choppers dropped those all over the quake area. I mean, again, I know I am Captain Obvious here, but am I really alone in seeing this? I've been thinking this for many years (say decades) and I wonder who really is asleep at the wheel of the Good Ship Logic Clue Phone.
The military (and bless their hearts) have the long term serious delivery mechanisms, but they are warehouse/pallets/cranes to unload/prepackaged assuming a certain disaster/needing all sorts of port or landing strip capabilities... they are simply too hide bound, too rigid and working on a bureaucratic model that, frankly, writes off as unsaveable many of the people who survive, but are trapped, wounded, deprived, the initial disaster. The government and military (AND THE AID AGENCIES, DO NOT KID YOURSELVES) simply do not use hive mind and Internets (you young people know what I mean) to get the needed stuff collected by many individual hands and flung out of choppers or ATV's by many individual hands within hours of the need. We need to start thinking, as we should always have thought, that those who survive the disaster are BLESSED and before the serious infrastructure gets there, we have energetic young people send waves of targeted deliveries of what is needed within hours of the need.
I mean, sheesh, how much effort would it take for young people in Brazil, the USA, Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico... everywhere, to collect hundreds of boxes of retail antibiotic and bandages, throw them in knapsacks and have someone with access to air service drop it over there? Trust me, I would have had that done on day one (right after the tools, since we'd have tested how well and how many drop points we could identify with the first gloves and tools drop), and they would not have even had to call it the MaryMajor Good Samaritan ain't she wonderful air drop.
So while this is going on and all our hearts bleed for both the disaster and the many tragic missed opportunities, use this to observe and use logic, thinking about what you would need if you were in the situations we see so well covered today. Think about how you can study more about this, if for no other reason than to be well informed and ready if things happen in your own community. Learn how to use the tools, learn more about urban infrastructure, and observe how people with ready, even wounded hands, lacked even the most basic first response. I mean, sheesh, how many helicopters are there in the world, in that region? (Now, please do not take off across the Gulf on one on impulse after being fired up reading this, we cannot afford to lose a single one of you, believe you me). But see the logic of what I am saying and break away from the moribund and tard mentality of even the most "well meaning" agencies who are once again acting like this is the first disaster, first earthquake, first inaccessible disaster they have ever seen. It's like they have logic Alzheimer's or something. Why have we not had hundreds of private choppers all ready identified in areas who could do it, and better yet, some MadMax ATV drivers in the unaffected areas ready to receive drops and then drive them into the affected city? True, I was flummoxed trying to drive in the mud on the Navajo reservation, ha, but there are plenty of drivers better than me (like the Navajo friend who took the wheel of my rental car and she drove it with perfection!) Hive mind figures out how to get knapsacks of tools and medical aid collected by many, dropped by the daring and able, and driven by the modest and mighty into town.
I hope you have found this helpful, thinking of you, miss you and again, I'm so glad to see your response and concern.
Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts
Friday, January 15, 2010
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Cross honoring WWI dead under attack
Some guy filed suit that it was "unfair" that a plain wooden cross placed on national parks land seventy years ago to honor the dead of WWI because it allegedly promotes one religion on federal land. What? How dumb is that. It's now being argued at the US Supreme Court.
There are two errors in "logic," such as it is, by this clown and his supporters, who filed the original suit in 1999. Here they are:
1. The first error is that a "specific" religious symbol refers only to that religion's followers (as in only the Christian WWI war dead are being honored). I can easily prove the error in that. Suppose that a bunch of Buddhists got together and created a memorial, with one of their symbols, that honored all women who died in childbirth. I would find that touching and would never assume that they only meant all Buddhist women. I mean, DUH! Likewise a Jewish monument honoring all lost in the Holocaust, I figure that they are sending "good vibes" to all who died, and not only the Jews. If Muslims had calligraphy somewhere honoring all grey haired middle aged women who grew up in poverty, I'd be flattered, and not assume that they mean only Muslim grey haired women. Only a moron would reckon that a cross honoring all WWI dead is somehow selective and an insult or omission, rather than an honor to everyone. Sheesh.
2. The second error is that having a "Christian" symbol, a historic one, not a new one, on federal land is somehow enticing or coercing people to recognize Christianity as a "state" religion. This is totally bogus and I can prove it. Yep, I can prove it. How? OK. Attention all hikers in federal lands and national park systems. If you come across an ancient carving of American Indian cultures that depict any part of their religion, since it's on federal land it's wrong to put it there, so I guess it's OK for you to remove the carvings. Either deface them or chip them out and sell them in the antiquities market (maybe help to balance the budget). Why not? Would not the presence of an American Indian religious symbol carved into a rock on federal land be endorsement of the "state" religion? Better get ready to remove any and all American Indian religious carvings anywhere on federal land. In fact, I think I might even insist on it, if the cross is so bad... gosh, think how we've been living under the insult and coercion of American Indian pagan faith symbols being protected and treasured on Federal lands. Hmmmm.....
There, now that was not so difficult, was it now?
;-)
There are two errors in "logic," such as it is, by this clown and his supporters, who filed the original suit in 1999. Here they are:
1. The first error is that a "specific" religious symbol refers only to that religion's followers (as in only the Christian WWI war dead are being honored). I can easily prove the error in that. Suppose that a bunch of Buddhists got together and created a memorial, with one of their symbols, that honored all women who died in childbirth. I would find that touching and would never assume that they only meant all Buddhist women. I mean, DUH! Likewise a Jewish monument honoring all lost in the Holocaust, I figure that they are sending "good vibes" to all who died, and not only the Jews. If Muslims had calligraphy somewhere honoring all grey haired middle aged women who grew up in poverty, I'd be flattered, and not assume that they mean only Muslim grey haired women. Only a moron would reckon that a cross honoring all WWI dead is somehow selective and an insult or omission, rather than an honor to everyone. Sheesh.
2. The second error is that having a "Christian" symbol, a historic one, not a new one, on federal land is somehow enticing or coercing people to recognize Christianity as a "state" religion. This is totally bogus and I can prove it. Yep, I can prove it. How? OK. Attention all hikers in federal lands and national park systems. If you come across an ancient carving of American Indian cultures that depict any part of their religion, since it's on federal land it's wrong to put it there, so I guess it's OK for you to remove the carvings. Either deface them or chip them out and sell them in the antiquities market (maybe help to balance the budget). Why not? Would not the presence of an American Indian religious symbol carved into a rock on federal land be endorsement of the "state" religion? Better get ready to remove any and all American Indian religious carvings anywhere on federal land. In fact, I think I might even insist on it, if the cross is so bad... gosh, think how we've been living under the insult and coercion of American Indian pagan faith symbols being protected and treasured on Federal lands. Hmmmm.....
There, now that was not so difficult, was it now?
;-)
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
How to use logic when understanding God
I demonstrated several blog postings ago that Jesus himself phrased some of his teachings in order for those who listened to him (and later, through the Gospel, read what he said) to understand and follow along with his statements through the use of human logic. Faith is great and the foundation of understanding God, but God also expects humans to use their brains and to be logical and intellectual about what he says and does. While listening to one of my favorite radio talk shows, mention was made of how God created humans in his image, as stated in the Book of Genesis. I realized that this would be a great example for me to demonstrate two uses of logic, in the form of deductive reasoning, that God is utilizing in explaining himself in scripture.
The first example is really obvious and demonstrates how you are using deductive reasoning to understand the scriptures when you read them, without even realizing it. Consider how we all know that angels were created by God before God created humans, even though that is not stated per se in the Bible. There are two kinds of people, those who trust their deductive reasoning, without even knowing they are using it, and those who don't trust their deductive reasoning, and therefore miss the point, think that there's some conspiracy or 'secret' information, or who simply fail to grasp facts when they are offered in that format. This is why the first example is very helpful to look at.
Genesis 1:1-13 describes how God created, in this order: light, darkness, day, night, heaven and then the earth. Heaven is not described at all, while earth is described (it has dry land, it has seas, it has vegetation produced from seeds, trees bear fruit according to their specific type of seed).
So our first fact, our first premise, is that heaven is created before the earth.
We have details about the life forms on earth, but nothing is said about life forms in heaven.
However, after God continues in his great creation, where he now creates the lights in the earth's sky, and the animals that live on earth, God now says:
Genesis 1:26 God said, "Let us make mankind in our image and likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle, over all the wild animals and every creature that crawls on the earth."
Notice that God uses the word "us." Those who read the scripture with both faith and logic understand that God is referring to the angels who dwell in heaven with him when he says "us." Just because God does not detail anything about heaven, either its structure or its inhabitants, does not mean heaven is empty or that "us" means multiple gods, aliens, etc. God talks to humans in simple to understand truth. It is important to hear and receive what he says accordingly.
So the faithful are expected to use their brains, which is articulated through this simple logic.
1. Heaven is created before the earth.
2. Angels live with God in heaven, while humans live on earth.
3. Therefore angels were created before humans.
When you have an obviously accurate conclusion based on sound deductive reasoning, as demonstrated in this example, one still feels better when one "tests" the results of one's deduction with further confirming scripture.
Genesis 1:27 God created man in his image. In the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them.
Now you can draw a second conclusion based on deductive reasoning.
1. God created Heaven.
2. Angels live in heaven with God.
3. God is speaking to other beings, known as "us."
4. Since humans have not yet been created, "us" refers to God and the angels.
5. God suggests making humans "in our image and likeness."
6. We can conclude that angels and God share the same or similar "image" and "likeness."
7. God created the angels.
8. We can conclude that God created angels in the sharing of God's image and likeness.
Again, those with simple faith and sound logic draw these conclusions based on deduction without even realizing it. This is because God gives all humans everything they need to know and understand him and what he is saying. People are not supposed to be combinations of Einstein and paranoid/rocket scientist/conspiracy theorists!
So we now know based on scripture and deductive reasoning that angels were created before human beings, and that angels were the first to share with God his image and likeness. God now suggests to the angels that God, when he creates humans, likewise creates them to share in the image and likeness now enjoyed by God and the angels.
By the way, the Qur'an spells out that the audience during God's creation of human beings is, indeed, the angels of heaven, who are already in existence before human beings are created.
Now we can use deductive reasoning to understand something a bit deeper about God, which is what exactly God means by humans sharing his image and likeness? It's not difficult to believe that angels, in their heavenly forms, share the luminous wonder, and often awe inspiring to the point of terror, magnificence and power in form of God, who is all light and glory. But how do mundane flesh based human beings "share" God's image and likeness? Here is how we can use some logic and deductive reasoning to understand this.
Genesis 1:28 Then God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it."
1. God's first orders to humans, therefore, are to be fruitful and multiply.
2. God gave these first orders immediately after his act of creation.
3. Therefore we can conclude that God considers humans to be the most in his likeness when they are being fruitful and multiplying.
Someone might raise, logically, two concerns. One is, "Hey, if angels are in his likeness, does that mean they procreate?" Angels do procreate, but not biologically. Angels procreate the Word of God, the Will of God, and praise of God. In the scripture we see that angels procreate by spreading the word when commissioned by God among humans (such as the Annunciation) AND they continually procreate in service of God when they continually sing and shout His praise in heaven. So humans are expected to procreate biologically to be consistent with the likeness of God, while angels procreate the Will of God to be consistent with the likeness of God.
The second concern might be that God is endorsing that humans be like him in being creators? Nope, that is a very clearly stated prohibition, when Adam and Eve are thrown out of the Garden of Eden and humans are told not to try to seek God's Knowledge. But here in this scripture you can understand the difference. Genesis explains that seeds create trees, and trees create fruit that is natural to them (fruit is their offspring). Thus it is obvious that God is telling humans to yield their own fruit-human children-by being "fruitful" and "multiplying," not being creators themselves, which is strictly forbidden in the telling of the temptation and expulsion from the Garden of Eden.
Revelation 4:8 ...And they do not rest day and night, saying Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God almighty, who was, and who is, and who is coming.
Many joke, good heartedly, that heaven must get boring if one is just playing the harp and singing for all eternity! On the serious side, you must understand that the continual praise of God by the angels is their way of procreating His Word and His Will, and the saved humans who join them in heaven are now part of this work and this bliss.
Now, how can we use deductive reasoning in the scriptures to better understand how humans can share the same "image" as God, who is known to be awesome, blinding light that cannot be viewed by humans? Here is one way to understand it from the one who saw God's image close-up, the man who was Moses.
Exodus 33:18-23
Then Moses said, "Do let me see your glory!" He answered, "I will make all my beauty pass before you, and in your presence I will pronounce my name 'Lord'; I who show favors to whom I will, I who grant mercy to whom I will. But my face you cannot see, for no man sees me and still lives. Here," continued the Lord, "is a place near me where you shall station yourself on the rock. When my glory passes I will set you in the hollow of the rock and will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand, so that you may see my back; but my face is not to be seen."
What do we learn about something that God and humans share in their image? Both God and humans have a "front" and a "back." Humans have a biological front (where their sensory organs are concentrated on one side, such as eyes, ears, mouth and ease of touching and reach) while God has a spiritual "front," which represents the full force of his focus, which, as God explains, no human can endure and remain alive. However, Moses is given the grace and strength by God to be able to view the "back" of God, which is not biological, but, rather, the lesssening of God's full force of attention. So God has a "front" and a "back," which are not at all biological in format or in limitations to his ability to be uniformly everywhere and all powerful in all "directions" but, as humans mirror, the fullness of his attention and focus "front" being like the concentration of human sensory organs, and a deflected and less force of focus and attention being like God's "back" as he passes by Moses.
Notice that, however, God gives Moses an extra gift, an extraordinary grace, which no human has ever experienced in addition to the singular allowing to Moses alone of his viewing God in his glory: God pronounces his Name for Moses. Think of this as hearing God's voice pronouncing his Name of all Power as a small amount of what would have been his full front viewing presence of his full glory, which Moses nor no human could survive! Thus God allows Moses to see him the only way he can, which is his back in passing, but also with hearing God speak his name from His "front."
1. God shares his image with angels and humans.
2. Moses is the only human to see God in his full glory on earth.
3. God explains that he has a front and a back.
4. Therefore we understand that a key component of the shared image of God and humans is that there is a "side" that has full sensory focus and the other "side" which has less sensory focus.
Again, remember in God's case this is not a lack in any way regarding either his powers or how he "looks" but, rather, God creates his "front" when he presents himself in full glory, and God presents his "back" when he withholds some of his glory so that Moses can endure being in his presence.
The presence and image of God is so powerful that even when Moses stands in front of the Lord as he appears as the cloud, and not his full glory, Moses's "skin of his face had become radiant while he conversed with the Lord" Exodus 34:29. The face is on the "front" and so powerful is the presence of God that when Moses faces even the cloud of God, each time his face is made radiant by God's image. So we can further deduce from scripture that the ability to be radiant is another shared image between God and humans, except that again, as with the front and back, God is always radiant, while humans can become radiant only in God's presence.
I guess, thinking back about how God, has a "front" and a "back" (again, please keep in mind that these are not biologically but, rather, how God radiates the fullness of his glory and focus, or veils it) that, just to have a little whimsy and humor here, the fish the most like God must be the flounder!
I hope that you have found this helpful.
The first example is really obvious and demonstrates how you are using deductive reasoning to understand the scriptures when you read them, without even realizing it. Consider how we all know that angels were created by God before God created humans, even though that is not stated per se in the Bible. There are two kinds of people, those who trust their deductive reasoning, without even knowing they are using it, and those who don't trust their deductive reasoning, and therefore miss the point, think that there's some conspiracy or 'secret' information, or who simply fail to grasp facts when they are offered in that format. This is why the first example is very helpful to look at.
Genesis 1:1-13 describes how God created, in this order: light, darkness, day, night, heaven and then the earth. Heaven is not described at all, while earth is described (it has dry land, it has seas, it has vegetation produced from seeds, trees bear fruit according to their specific type of seed).
So our first fact, our first premise, is that heaven is created before the earth.
We have details about the life forms on earth, but nothing is said about life forms in heaven.
However, after God continues in his great creation, where he now creates the lights in the earth's sky, and the animals that live on earth, God now says:
Genesis 1:26 God said, "Let us make mankind in our image and likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle, over all the wild animals and every creature that crawls on the earth."
Notice that God uses the word "us." Those who read the scripture with both faith and logic understand that God is referring to the angels who dwell in heaven with him when he says "us." Just because God does not detail anything about heaven, either its structure or its inhabitants, does not mean heaven is empty or that "us" means multiple gods, aliens, etc. God talks to humans in simple to understand truth. It is important to hear and receive what he says accordingly.
So the faithful are expected to use their brains, which is articulated through this simple logic.
1. Heaven is created before the earth.
2. Angels live with God in heaven, while humans live on earth.
3. Therefore angels were created before humans.
When you have an obviously accurate conclusion based on sound deductive reasoning, as demonstrated in this example, one still feels better when one "tests" the results of one's deduction with further confirming scripture.
Genesis 1:27 God created man in his image. In the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them.
Now you can draw a second conclusion based on deductive reasoning.
1. God created Heaven.
2. Angels live in heaven with God.
3. God is speaking to other beings, known as "us."
4. Since humans have not yet been created, "us" refers to God and the angels.
5. God suggests making humans "in our image and likeness."
6. We can conclude that angels and God share the same or similar "image" and "likeness."
7. God created the angels.
8. We can conclude that God created angels in the sharing of God's image and likeness.
Again, those with simple faith and sound logic draw these conclusions based on deduction without even realizing it. This is because God gives all humans everything they need to know and understand him and what he is saying. People are not supposed to be combinations of Einstein and paranoid/rocket scientist/conspiracy theorists!
So we now know based on scripture and deductive reasoning that angels were created before human beings, and that angels were the first to share with God his image and likeness. God now suggests to the angels that God, when he creates humans, likewise creates them to share in the image and likeness now enjoyed by God and the angels.
By the way, the Qur'an spells out that the audience during God's creation of human beings is, indeed, the angels of heaven, who are already in existence before human beings are created.
Now we can use deductive reasoning to understand something a bit deeper about God, which is what exactly God means by humans sharing his image and likeness? It's not difficult to believe that angels, in their heavenly forms, share the luminous wonder, and often awe inspiring to the point of terror, magnificence and power in form of God, who is all light and glory. But how do mundane flesh based human beings "share" God's image and likeness? Here is how we can use some logic and deductive reasoning to understand this.
Genesis 1:28 Then God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it."
1. God's first orders to humans, therefore, are to be fruitful and multiply.
2. God gave these first orders immediately after his act of creation.
3. Therefore we can conclude that God considers humans to be the most in his likeness when they are being fruitful and multiplying.
Someone might raise, logically, two concerns. One is, "Hey, if angels are in his likeness, does that mean they procreate?" Angels do procreate, but not biologically. Angels procreate the Word of God, the Will of God, and praise of God. In the scripture we see that angels procreate by spreading the word when commissioned by God among humans (such as the Annunciation) AND they continually procreate in service of God when they continually sing and shout His praise in heaven. So humans are expected to procreate biologically to be consistent with the likeness of God, while angels procreate the Will of God to be consistent with the likeness of God.
The second concern might be that God is endorsing that humans be like him in being creators? Nope, that is a very clearly stated prohibition, when Adam and Eve are thrown out of the Garden of Eden and humans are told not to try to seek God's Knowledge. But here in this scripture you can understand the difference. Genesis explains that seeds create trees, and trees create fruit that is natural to them (fruit is their offspring). Thus it is obvious that God is telling humans to yield their own fruit-human children-by being "fruitful" and "multiplying," not being creators themselves, which is strictly forbidden in the telling of the temptation and expulsion from the Garden of Eden.
Revelation 4:8 ...And they do not rest day and night, saying Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God almighty, who was, and who is, and who is coming.
Many joke, good heartedly, that heaven must get boring if one is just playing the harp and singing for all eternity! On the serious side, you must understand that the continual praise of God by the angels is their way of procreating His Word and His Will, and the saved humans who join them in heaven are now part of this work and this bliss.
Now, how can we use deductive reasoning in the scriptures to better understand how humans can share the same "image" as God, who is known to be awesome, blinding light that cannot be viewed by humans? Here is one way to understand it from the one who saw God's image close-up, the man who was Moses.
Exodus 33:18-23
Then Moses said, "Do let me see your glory!" He answered, "I will make all my beauty pass before you, and in your presence I will pronounce my name 'Lord'; I who show favors to whom I will, I who grant mercy to whom I will. But my face you cannot see, for no man sees me and still lives. Here," continued the Lord, "is a place near me where you shall station yourself on the rock. When my glory passes I will set you in the hollow of the rock and will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand, so that you may see my back; but my face is not to be seen."
What do we learn about something that God and humans share in their image? Both God and humans have a "front" and a "back." Humans have a biological front (where their sensory organs are concentrated on one side, such as eyes, ears, mouth and ease of touching and reach) while God has a spiritual "front," which represents the full force of his focus, which, as God explains, no human can endure and remain alive. However, Moses is given the grace and strength by God to be able to view the "back" of God, which is not biological, but, rather, the lesssening of God's full force of attention. So God has a "front" and a "back," which are not at all biological in format or in limitations to his ability to be uniformly everywhere and all powerful in all "directions" but, as humans mirror, the fullness of his attention and focus "front" being like the concentration of human sensory organs, and a deflected and less force of focus and attention being like God's "back" as he passes by Moses.
Notice that, however, God gives Moses an extra gift, an extraordinary grace, which no human has ever experienced in addition to the singular allowing to Moses alone of his viewing God in his glory: God pronounces his Name for Moses. Think of this as hearing God's voice pronouncing his Name of all Power as a small amount of what would have been his full front viewing presence of his full glory, which Moses nor no human could survive! Thus God allows Moses to see him the only way he can, which is his back in passing, but also with hearing God speak his name from His "front."
1. God shares his image with angels and humans.
2. Moses is the only human to see God in his full glory on earth.
3. God explains that he has a front and a back.
4. Therefore we understand that a key component of the shared image of God and humans is that there is a "side" that has full sensory focus and the other "side" which has less sensory focus.
Again, remember in God's case this is not a lack in any way regarding either his powers or how he "looks" but, rather, God creates his "front" when he presents himself in full glory, and God presents his "back" when he withholds some of his glory so that Moses can endure being in his presence.
The presence and image of God is so powerful that even when Moses stands in front of the Lord as he appears as the cloud, and not his full glory, Moses's "skin of his face had become radiant while he conversed with the Lord" Exodus 34:29. The face is on the "front" and so powerful is the presence of God that when Moses faces even the cloud of God, each time his face is made radiant by God's image. So we can further deduce from scripture that the ability to be radiant is another shared image between God and humans, except that again, as with the front and back, God is always radiant, while humans can become radiant only in God's presence.
I guess, thinking back about how God, has a "front" and a "back" (again, please keep in mind that these are not biologically but, rather, how God radiates the fullness of his glory and focus, or veils it) that, just to have a little whimsy and humor here, the fish the most like God must be the flounder!
I hope that you have found this helpful.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Use logic to discern torture "policy" "usefulness"
So we have former administration people defending the use of "extraordinary" methods, otherwise known as torture, because it "got results" and "saved American lives" because several key figures broke under torture and gave verifiable information.
Immediately, using the illogical that passes for logic in these modern times, some people who waffle on the issue will join the stout defenders of torture, saying, "Well, if it's proven to save lives then we have to condone it."
Well no, you don't. Here are the two errors in logic and how to properly discern your own morality on this issue.
1. Let's assume that apologists are right and "torture works" because it "saves American lives." All right, then let's start using it everywhere that American lives are at risk. For example, let's waterboard Americans who have addictions to alcohol and drugs. We can waterboard Americans who drink and drive until they "stop" and thus "save lives." We can waterboard everyone who purchases illegal drugs to get the names of their dealers and thus "save lives."
If it's so effective, let's use it where we are having many losses of lives, rather than just for one or two terrorist plots that may or may not have been serious or worked anyways.
2. If you measure the "good information" gotten from torture, and thus the plots stopped, how do you measure the other half of the cost/benefit analysis, which is how many new recruits and new plots are devised because people's hatred of America grows in response to torture and other abuses? What I am saying is that logic dictates that when you measure a benefit, such as "lives saved," just like in a spread sheet you have to deduct additional lives lost to get from the "gross" to the "net" lives saved. We'd have to know how many new terrorists, or recommitted terrorists (such as those who return to terrorism after release) do so because they are invigorated in their despising of the American methods of torture.
You see, it won't be that they are not used to even cruder methods, possibly, in their home country. It is the hypocrisy that earns additional loathing by terrorists. So don't be hypocrites, touting American sensibilities, and then defend torture, and expect terrorists to think, "Well, at least the Americans don't 'torture as bad' as some other countries might." No one thinks that; instead, they focus on the American hypocrisy.
Those are the two errors in logic in claiming that because torturing a handful of terrorists 'saved lives' because it gave 'good results' that it is therefore a free pass to torture with no consequences.
Hey, let's waterboard all corporate executives who have stolen and swindled money and hidden it. Seriously. I mean, that would give good results, no?
Immediately, using the illogical that passes for logic in these modern times, some people who waffle on the issue will join the stout defenders of torture, saying, "Well, if it's proven to save lives then we have to condone it."
Well no, you don't. Here are the two errors in logic and how to properly discern your own morality on this issue.
1. Let's assume that apologists are right and "torture works" because it "saves American lives." All right, then let's start using it everywhere that American lives are at risk. For example, let's waterboard Americans who have addictions to alcohol and drugs. We can waterboard Americans who drink and drive until they "stop" and thus "save lives." We can waterboard everyone who purchases illegal drugs to get the names of their dealers and thus "save lives."
If it's so effective, let's use it where we are having many losses of lives, rather than just for one or two terrorist plots that may or may not have been serious or worked anyways.
2. If you measure the "good information" gotten from torture, and thus the plots stopped, how do you measure the other half of the cost/benefit analysis, which is how many new recruits and new plots are devised because people's hatred of America grows in response to torture and other abuses? What I am saying is that logic dictates that when you measure a benefit, such as "lives saved," just like in a spread sheet you have to deduct additional lives lost to get from the "gross" to the "net" lives saved. We'd have to know how many new terrorists, or recommitted terrorists (such as those who return to terrorism after release) do so because they are invigorated in their despising of the American methods of torture.
You see, it won't be that they are not used to even cruder methods, possibly, in their home country. It is the hypocrisy that earns additional loathing by terrorists. So don't be hypocrites, touting American sensibilities, and then defend torture, and expect terrorists to think, "Well, at least the Americans don't 'torture as bad' as some other countries might." No one thinks that; instead, they focus on the American hypocrisy.
Those are the two errors in logic in claiming that because torturing a handful of terrorists 'saved lives' because it gave 'good results' that it is therefore a free pass to torture with no consequences.
Hey, let's waterboard all corporate executives who have stolen and swindled money and hidden it. Seriously. I mean, that would give good results, no?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Case study: Lincoln using logic
I have been sharing with readers tips on how to use reasoning and logic to carefully explore even (and I'd say even especially) those things that seem simple and obvious. Read this famous example of how Lincoln described the problem of slavery, and developed principles through which to reason and deduce the available options and implied consequences:
If I saw a venomous snake crawling in the road, any man would say I may seize the nearest stick and kill it. [Slavery in itself.]
But if I found that snake in bed with my children that would be another question. I might hurt the children more than the snake, and it might bite them. [Slavery in the South.]
Much more, if I found it in bed with my neighbor's children, and I had bound myself by a solemn oath not to meddle with his children under any circumstances, it would become me to let that particular mode of getting rid of the gentleman alone. [Slavery in the South as seen from the North.]
But if there was a bed newly made up, to which the children were to be taken, and it was proposed to take a batch of young snakes and put them there with them, I take it no man would say there was any question how I ought to decide. [Slavery in the territories.]
Lincoln was very careful in framing these parallels (delivered to a Connecticut audience early in 1860). He does not speak of Southerners as belonging to different states, but as "neighbors" with whom one has a solemn agreement. Nor does he palliate the evil of slavery-it is a snake no matter where one finds it, and it endangers the Southerners' children. But in denouncing the evil, in trying to contain it, in hoping for new agreements, Lincoln will not divide the "one people" that declared itself united in the Declaration... (Garry Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg, page 138-9).
Now, notice that being rationale and thoughtful about the layers of consequence of action did not stop Lincoln from taking the fateful and correct step of eradicating slavery. So one should not fear that being honest about the layers of implication and potential consequences of a monumental problem or decision will lead to inaction. Lincoln followed the steps of his logic, thoughtfully escalating, and it was the South who repeatedly refused to use a similar process of accommodation. Thus Lincoln concluded that the South had removed itself from the protection and rights of the Union, and thus was no longer the neighbor with whom he had a solemn oath (the third analogy) and realized that war would be necessary, and there would be the damage (the high price of war) of analogy two, which is to remove the snake of slavery that is already in bed with the children (as Lincoln continued to insist and explain that it was one nation, one set of children, not the "north" and the "south.")
Think about Iraq. When the decision was made to invade and occupy Iraq, you can see reading this excerpt from Lincoln's thought process how inadequate the thought process was regarding Iraq and the implications of various sets of actions. For example, one of my biggest criticisms of the Iraq strategy was the incomprehensible dismantling of the Iraqi army, rather than turning them into the service of the country without Hussein. Lincoln was very diligent and rationale in "enemy identification," which was slavery itself, not the people. The USA spoke the game of liberating the people, but they had obviously assigned "snake" categories to groups of people and institutions without any genuine reasoning and thoughtfulness. Thus to conclude that the army was part of the problem rather than solution, once the head of the snake was cut off, was a dire and stupid error.
Diplomats and other government officials can benefit greatly from the study of Lincoln, as you can see in this example, and use what they read to illuminate a more mature and well informed steps of progress in international relationships and in the necessary conflicts when they do arise.
If Lincoln, for all the evil of slavery and all the provocation he was subjected to when trying to reason with the South, can and did retain his view of them, ultimately, still being Americans, still being neighbors, still being children with his children, then we all would do well to do likewise in world affairs and diplomacy.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Question to ask yourselves
Sometimes when one gets bogged down in thinking about a very complex problem or situation, it helps to back completely out of it and do this mental exercise. Imagine the opposite of what you are arguing about, and then assess how likely it is to be true. It has a remarkable effect on clarity. Here is how to use it about the Catholic position regarding its pro life view that human life with soul is present from the moment of conception in a living embryo in the womb and that abortion is always morally wrong (even under very sympathetic conditions, such as incest and rape). Catholics hold to this view because they are convinced from the very beginning of faith history (both Jewish and Christian) that abortion is wrong and forbidden by God. OK, this is a subject that makes many people's heads hurt, so let's apply the exercise I am teaching you and try it out, to see if there is more clarity.
Who out there really believes that this would ever take place? Several people die and go to heaven, some of them have had or enabled abortions and some did not have abortions. Who here can visualize God taking the abortion experienced persons, patting them on the head, putting halos on them, and saying, "I'm so glad you really figured out that I am really pro abortion!" and then sends them directly to heaven. Then, God turns to those who did not have abortions and says, "I must chide you for making people who had abortions feel bad because you didn't have abortions yourself and you didn't support abortions in general, and you failed to correct the stupid Catholic Church, so I'm going to send you to purgatory for a while so you can repent for not realizing that I'm really pro abortion!"
OK. Who out there would honestly say that you think the above might ever actually really happen? *sound of crickets*
If you cannot even have a small percentage of certainty that the above could conceivably (no pun intended) take place, how can you dare to both believe in God and risk the highly likely opposite scenario? I mean, what kind of logic leads you to argue for a position that if you really wrote down its implications in hard letters as I have here, you have to admit that the likelihood of that scenario is less than nill?
Who here really thinks that God will praise them for "correcting" the "bad" Catholic Church, and going out there and with gusto having some abortions? And that God will chastise as "unsympathetic" those who did not have abortions, who had children instead, or who paid for orphans to be adopted into families? Who really thinks the above exercise scenario would ever take place? Face it, even an atheist would not believe the above scenario, because the atheist has to retreat into the "belief" that there is no God to question humans' actions and decisions at all.
You'll find this is a very useful exercise.
Who out there really believes that this would ever take place? Several people die and go to heaven, some of them have had or enabled abortions and some did not have abortions. Who here can visualize God taking the abortion experienced persons, patting them on the head, putting halos on them, and saying, "I'm so glad you really figured out that I am really pro abortion!" and then sends them directly to heaven. Then, God turns to those who did not have abortions and says, "I must chide you for making people who had abortions feel bad because you didn't have abortions yourself and you didn't support abortions in general, and you failed to correct the stupid Catholic Church, so I'm going to send you to purgatory for a while so you can repent for not realizing that I'm really pro abortion!"
OK. Who out there would honestly say that you think the above might ever actually really happen? *sound of crickets*
If you cannot even have a small percentage of certainty that the above could conceivably (no pun intended) take place, how can you dare to both believe in God and risk the highly likely opposite scenario? I mean, what kind of logic leads you to argue for a position that if you really wrote down its implications in hard letters as I have here, you have to admit that the likelihood of that scenario is less than nill?
Who here really thinks that God will praise them for "correcting" the "bad" Catholic Church, and going out there and with gusto having some abortions? And that God will chastise as "unsympathetic" those who did not have abortions, who had children instead, or who paid for orphans to be adopted into families? Who really thinks the above exercise scenario would ever take place? Face it, even an atheist would not believe the above scenario, because the atheist has to retreat into the "belief" that there is no God to question humans' actions and decisions at all.
You'll find this is a very useful exercise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
