• Recent Entries
• Archives (By Date)
• Archives (By Tag)

A story about despair and hope

Posted on 2007-10-04 at 13:28

An old Cherokee was teaching his grandchildren about life. He said to them, "A battle is raging inside me ... it is a terrible fight between two wolves. One wolf represents fear, anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority and ego. The other stands for joy, peace, love, hope, sharing, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, friendship, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."

The old man fixed the children with a firm stare. "This same fight is going on inside you, and inside every other person, too."

They thought about it for a minute and then one child asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The old Cherokee replied: "The one you feed."

Make A Comment

Transcendence and Limit

Posted on 2007-05-17 at 08:17

Freedom only exists within limits. Whether it be Free Will, a Free Market, or free beer, freedom is always constrained by the system in which it finds itself. The concept of Limit lies at the core of any discussion of Freedom. This is among the reasons why Limit is the second most difficult concept in the Western world to tackle properly.

Make A Comment

So I received an email...

Posted on 2007-04-26 at 21:14

The subject of the email was "FW: YOU BET I'LL PASS IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!" The contents went something like this:

YOU BET I'LL PASS IT ON!!!- - -

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!

I was asked to send this on if I agree or delete if I don't. It is said that 86% of Americans Believe in God. Therefore I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a problem in having "In God We Trust" on our money and having "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I AGREE!

PLEASE KEEP THIS GOING, EVEN IF YOU HAVE PASSED IT ON BEFORE!!

Please send this on after a short Prayer!

Prayer wheel for our Marines, soldiers, sailors, Coast guard, and airmen.. Please don't break it

"Dear Heavenly Father, Hold our troops in your loving hands. Protect them as they protect us. Bless them and their families For the selfless acts they perform For us in our time of need. Please stop a moment And say a prayer for our troops (land, air, and sea) in Afghanistan , Kuwait , Iraq and all around the world.

This can be very powerful... Just send this to people in your address book. Do not stop the wheel, please...

Of all the gifts you could give our . Military,s Prayer is the very best one!

God will Love You for helping Spread His Word..THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The American G. I. And soldiers of all nations

One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET BOTH OF THEM.

As you might imagine I have strong feelings on this topic, so I decided to reply:

According to the U.S. Census in 2001 the percentage of Christians is 79.8% (a drop of 8.5% from 10 years earlier), Jews constitute another 1.4%, and Muslims another 0.6%. The rest of the United States does not acknowledge any sort of deity that bears even a passing resemblance to the God of Jewish culture that Christians, Muslims, and Jews worship. Fully 15% of Americans do not acknowledge any religion at all (an increase of 6.6% over the preceding 10 years).

The reason having those statements on our money and in our national pledge is a bad thing is that it tries to sanctify our nation as a religious one. This /is/ a problem. Our nation is a secular one and that's that way it was designed. Our separation of church and state is necessary to uphold the freedoms our military is installed to protect. One of those freedoms is the freedom to be an atheist, an agnostic, a Buddhist, or a Wicca. When we put "One nation under God" in our pledge we are asking those people (nearly 1 in 5 citizens of this country!) to choose between their own faith and being loyal to America. When we put "In God we trust" on our money we are telling those same 1 in 5 Americans that they participate in our culture by our grace as Jews, Muslims, and Christians rather than by the grace of their own birthright as native-born Americans or by the hard-won choice they made when they undertook the road to gain citizenship. We are telling them, those 1 in 5 Americans, that their faith---their spiritual choices---make them less-than-fully American. I may not agree with your choice to be an atheist, but I'd be damned before I let your Right to make that decision be stripped away.

If you are unswayed by those arguments, let me make one that appeals to your self interest. Right now we (religious people who recognize the Jewish God in our faith) are the majority. Re-read the numbers I gave you in the first paragraph. The numbers of people who are not us doubled in the 90s. That number has continued to grow in the 2000s. That growth is at the expense of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim populations. There may very possibly come a day when we are the minority. If and when that day comes, do you want the new majority to look back on our behavior as a model? If so, what lessons do you want them to take from us? That we forced our views on others? That we made them stand up in class every morning and say a pledge to a God they didn't believe in or be ostracized for abstaining? Not me. I want them to look back and see that we instead treated them as equals, that we allowed them the freedom to choose as they please, they we gave them every opportunity to see our faith but never pushed it on them. That's what I want them to remember if they are ever in the majority, because it is our choices now that will help shape their choices in the future. If we don't recognize the position we are putting them in with a federal endorsement of our specific religious claims, then I promise you that whatever persecution we face as a future minority will be of our own making.

So, no, I won't pass this message on and, no, I won't delete it if I disagree. I'll stand proud as an American with a voice and as a Christian with compassion and reply on behalf of all those people who are not being given a voice in this debate, who are not being given a choice in their pledge or on their currency, who are not being given respect by the majority of Christians who sit damnably silent because it isn't they who are being disenfranchised this time.

Remove God from our federal payroll. He doesn't need our support. We need His. Muhammad once said that difference of opinion in the community is a manifestation of God's mercy.

God bless everyone. No exceptions.

I think my reply said all that needs saying regarding my position on this topic.

Make A Comment

What would you die for?

Posted on 2007-04-03 at 07:51

I was reading about friendly fire killing more coalition soldiers. Friendly fire? What the hell is that? It's like the phrase "Civil War". Makes no damn sense.

And while I'm bitching, let me add a bit about John McCain. Listen John, I understood when you pandered to the extreme right. You need the nomination and you won't get it without appearances at places like Liberty University and telling Republican beleivers that the war is going well, but you crossed a line. I can turn the other cheek when you make outrageous claims about mythical safe Baghdad streets, but to put 100 soldiers in harm's way to prove how safe those streets are? You are damn lucky that none of them got hurt in that little publicity stunt. If they had? What would you have said at their funeral? Do you tell the mother, wife, or husband that their little soldier died an honorable death getting you elected?

So, I'll ask the title question to my audience here. What would you be willing to die for? Don't answer me. Just think about it.

Make A Comment

Mmmmm Sacra-licious!

Posted on 2007-04-02 at 08:04

I felt that the body of Christ, the---the meaning of Christ, is about the sweetness. Tell me more about this divinely-tasty Messiah of yours.

OK, enough with the dessert jokes. I did have one semi-serious point to make. To the guy in the linked article who said this was "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever," I'd like to respond with, "Then let me introduce you to the Colosseum. I think its rich history might afford you some damn perspective."

Make A Comment

The Word of God

Posted on 2007-02-20 at 21:05

Learn to love the xkcd.

Make A Comment

"Make Up" or "Make Believe"

Posted on 2007-01-21 at 15:07

Like the field in the quote above from Homer's Illiad, these women are made into an image of beauty. It is not the dirt in the field we find beautiful nor the woman under the makeup, but rather it is the beauty, even the dignity, that our culture bestows on them that makes them pleasing to us. Aesthetic beauty and moral beauty are not easily distinguished. Like the education of our children, we move purposefully from a natural to a cultural state. It's what we do. We transform nature. We make it in our self-image as we perceive it, and when it gets too hard to do on our own, we ask for help---from ploughmen, makeup artists, painters...and each other.

I was leaving the building for the day. A co-worker was leaving at the same time. When we saw each other standing up, we gave our daily good bye's, put on our coats and left our cubes. Hollywood would have the decency to fade to black at this point, but real life is not so interested in transforming nature. No, we'd said all that needed saying. We both got up and left. Problem is, we both went the same way. So now, we are walking to the parking lot together in an awkward silence. No script was prepared. No protocol readied us for the silent walk out. I said, "So it's not so easy to get rid of me, is it?" We laughed. The moment was rescued from reality and given a cultural context---hence a beauty. As a species, we don't like ugly.

So, what does it mean to say someone is a human? I suppose it depends on who you ask, but I would argue that we are not merely complex bipedal mammal. Being human is more than that. It's about stopping to enjoy a warm fire in a winter chill, it's about having a dream, seeking out the things that are pleasing. Being human is about enjoying the beauty that we, each of us, adds to the world in which we live. I could be crass about the Hollywood makeovers in the video above, but I think I'll just be grateful to the directors, the artists, designers, scriptwriters, and air-brushers who are trying to give us a little bit more beautiful world than the one in which we find ourselves. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Make A Comment

In Honor of the Holiday Season

Posted on 2006-12-20 at 08:14

I present a history of the religions of the world in 90 seconds. Enjoy.

Make A Comment

The Origins of Halloween

Posted on 2006-10-14 at 12:31

There has been a great deal of misunderstanding about the Halloween holiday and in some cases, outright lies designed to eliminate its practice. Here is the actual history of the holiday. If you read this and still decide not to celebrate the holiday, well, then at least you've done so knowledgably. Personally, I like th eholiday. As secular holidays go, it's one of the funnest, not to mention it heralds my favorite time of year---from Halloween to the end of the New Year's celebration.

Halloween began 2000 years ago with the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain. The Celts of the British Isles began their year on November 1st. This was for agricultural reasons. The growing season was ended and the winter came, with it a new year dawned. As you might expect for an ancient civilization tied to agriculture for its sustenance, with winter came death. It was on the day before this "season of death" that the Celts believed the veil between this this world and the next was at its most thin. The ritual of Samhain helped the Celts ward off the evil spirits (that might otherwise cause all manner of deadly mischief) and to allow the Druids to soothsee the next year's future---thus allowing them to plan for the foreseen problems and events. They would offer burnt sacrifices to the the Celtic deities and engage is various nature rituals to appease the Gods, warn the spirits, and scry for impending dooms. Of course, they would dress as animals, which may be the origin of our costumed tradition.

Much later, during the Roman occupation, a couple fo Roman festivals began to merge slowly into the Celtic festival of Samhain. The first was Feralia, a Roman day of the dead, and the second was a holiday devoted to Pomona, the Roman goddess of fruits and trees. Though her symbol was the apple, there exists no direct proof that this might be the origin of our modern apple bobbing tradition.

...continued after picture...

As the middle ages bore close and Christianity's influence began being felt in all things across Europe, Pope Boniface IV designated the 1st of November as All Saints' Day to honor the Catholic saints and martyrs who've passed. There is some evidence that he coincided his new holiday with that of Samhain as a way to take some of the focus off the older pagan festival. The Catholic celebration was also called All-hallows and the day before, which was the day of Samhain, began to be called All-hallows Eve or Halloween. Later, the church added All Souls' Day to it's roster of holidays on November 2nd. With a celebration quite similar to the older Samhain, the three holidays became lumped together in the minds of the people celebrating and were referred to collectively as Hallowmas.

Much later, as European immigrants began their migration to America, they brought with them the traditions they'd grown to practice---among them, Halloween. Of course, due to Puritan interests in the New World, celebration of Halloween was limited and rare, but it did not die out, particualrly in southern America, where Puritanism had no substantial foothold.

As the traditions of the colonists and the American Indians began to mix, a distinctive American holiday took shape. They would hold public parties to celebrate the harvest---remember that for early colonists, the harvest held almost the same public importance and worry that it held for the early Celts. At these "play parties", the celebrants would whisper ghost stories and soothsay, and generally revel into the late evening. All-around mischief-making became part-and-parcel with the ghost stories. Though all this was done to celebrate the harvest, and it borrowed memes from the earlier Hallowmas festivals, t was not actually a celebration of Halloween itself---not directly, at least.

By the 1850s, America was awash in immigrants, many of whom brought with them a fresh practice of the Hallowmas. Takng a cue from the English and Irish immigrants, the colonists began to dress in costume and go house to house asking for food or money. As the popularity of the Hallowmas grew, so too grew a movement to shape this "new" holiday into something more modern and less superstitious. By the end of the 1800s, the holiday had begun making its transformation into a festival that, while having the trappings of a pagan celebration, had more to do with community and fun than ghouls and goblins.

...continued after picture...

Around 1900, parents were encouraged to remove the superstition from the nightly celebrations. References to ghosts and witches were replaces with princesses and animals. By 1920, the holiday had become wholly secular in practice in the Unites States. By 1950, the practice of begging for food and money had been reborn as the more modern "trick-or-treat".

Commercially-speaking, Halloween is the second largest holiday practiced in the Unites States, with Americans spending an estimated $6.9 billion annually.

While I've left some details out (like the Soul Cakes and bowls of food and drink left out for the spirits) you should now have the gist of the history of Halloween.

Make A Comment

A Brief Overview of Early Methodist History

Posted on 2006-09-17 at 21:10

Methodism began in 18th century Britain as a small society of students at Oxford. They became known, pejoratively, as "Methodists" becuase of their methodical approach to scripture and Christian living.

The three main proponents of this Anglican clarification movement were John Wesley (June 17, 1703 – March 2, 1791), Charles Wesley (18 December 1707 - 29 March 1788), and George Whitefield (December 16, 1714 - September 30, 1770).

Together these three men began the Methodist Revival. This early Methodist movement was a reaction to perceived apathy within the Church of England. It was driven by open-air preachers who established Methodist groups wherever they went. They gave boisterious, loud sermons that landed them accusations of being fanatical and mad. Critics popped up everywhere. Theophilus Evans wrote that it was "the natural Tendency of their Behaviour, in Voice and Gesture and horrid Expressions, to make People mad." William Hogarth also spoke of Methodists as "enthusiasts" full of "Credulity, Superstition and Fanaticism." Despite these accusations, the Methodist movement gained traction every day.

In the late 1760s, the Methodist Revival was brought to America by two travelling lay ministers named Philip Embury and Robert Strawbridge. By 1770 they were joined by Methodist missionaries sent by John Wesley himself to help organize the new American movement. Francis Ashbury reorganized the mid-Atlantic groups under the Methodist model (which caused no small bit of ill-will with the extant lay leaders). As the American Revolutionary War came and Wesley called many of his missionaries back, only Ashbury was left in the mid-Atlantic circuit. Strawbridge, however, had seen wild success in him mission, which began in Maryland at the same time as Embury. Strawbridge ordained himself and set about organizing a circuit. He trained others in the Methodist way and set them off to start circuits of their own. His organization's growth was astounding. The British missionaries who'd been sent to help Embury's group became aware of Strawbridge's group and brought it under their "official" wing. This, however, did not stop the native lay ministers from continuing to preach side-by-side with the missionaries from Wesley. This Southern Methodism did not have the same dependence on missionaries that the mid-Atlantic Methodism.

Though Strawbridge was ordained, none of his lay ministers were, and at the insistence of John Wesley they would still bring their congregation to an ordained Anglican minister for the performance of the sacraments. This ended, however, when the Anglican ministers began their flight to England around the time of the war. Left with no recourse, the lay ministers of Southern Methodism ordained themselves and began performing the sacraments on their own. This was a matter of great strife between the Southern and mid-Atlantic branches. To reconcile the groups, Ashbury was able to convince the Southerners to wait for word from Wesley on the subject.

Meanwhile in England, John Wesley allied himself with the Moravians---going as far as to help them found the Fetter Lane Society, the first real precursor to modern Methodism.

As his following in England grew, so to did tensions between his group and the Anglican church of which it was a part. His brother Charles and many of the followers urged a seperation from the Church of England, but John did not want that. "We dare not," he said, "administer baptism or the Lord's Supper without a commission from a bishop in the apostolic succession." By the next year, however, he had a change of heart. His recent reading convinced him that apostolic succession was a fiction. He said he was "a scriptural episcopos as much as any man in England."

In 1784, Wesley sent Ashbury a response to the American sacramental crisis. His response took the form of the Rev. Thomas Coke. Coke was sent to America to form an independant American Methodist Church.

Coke was to ordain Ashbury as a joint superintendant of the new church. Ashbury, seeing the great weight of the decision, chose to ask the assembled conference to vote, stating he would not accept any such office without the vote of his conference. He was voted into the office of Superintendent. Later, Coke and Ashbury were named Bishops, though Wesley did not agree to, nor did he approve of that titular promotion.

By 1792, the controversy of espiscopal power came to a head. Ultimately the conference gathered that year sided with Bishop Ashbury, though it caused the first strong split in the Methodist church, as the Primitive Methodists and the Republican Methodists branched off from the main church.

By late 1793, he broke with the Moravians. He brought with him those converted to his teachings and those converted by the words of his brother Charles and his friend George Whitefield. "Thus," he wrote, "without any previous plan, began the Methodist Society in England."

Make A Comment

The Gospels and Canonical Inclusion

Posted on 2006-09-14 at 07:48

Abstract
Concerning the decisions which led to the inclusion of the four gospels currently found in the New Testament.

Paper
In their attempt to canonize the new covenant of Christ, it is profoundly important that Christians utilize those works extant that will most closely intimate the teachings and life of Jesus, the Messiah, and as there are no known written works whose authorship can be directly attributed to Jesus, Christianity must search elsewhere for source information concerning his word and deed; thus for this reason Christianity looks to the various Gospels. Sources other than the Gospels exist and are viable as references to the Christian doctrine in their own various ways; however, since each classification of source would merit its own separate essay, this essay will concentrate on the Gospel genre by discussing the concept of the Gospel, arguing for a Gospel inclusion into the New Testament, and positing a rationale for determining which Gospels should become canonical.

Gospels are as diverse and varied as the people who write them---each having its own unique emphases and style; nevertheless, there are certain universal qualities which characterize and classify them as Gospels. Scholarly opinion is divided on several fine points as to what specifically defines a Gospel. Some see the Gospels primarily as forms of biographies of Jesus Christ while others regard them as having much more to do with the statement of the good news of salvation through Christ, however, a middle ground is more likely to be the case. The Gospel genre of writing steps beyond simple storytelling and the manifesto of religious aphorisms and coalesces into an admixture of the two---the combination of a biographical narrative and a religious ethos. Having established what a Gospel essentially is, one must next consider what reasoning is there to include this genre of writing in a religious text at all.

Christianity is a religion based on both the Old Testament canon and the teachings of Jesus Christ and as such it becomes eminently important to gather detailed information concerning the life and teachings of Jesus. Since Jesus was not an author, the only sources of knowledge on these matters are found in the writings of others closely associated with the man himself and most of these writings were not meant be to used as religious text, such as those official Roman documents and other non-Jewish/Christian texts that reference Jesus and the Christian movement. The Gospels, much like Paul's letters, were set forth as true and proper accounts of what it was to know Jesus and his way. Several documents in the New Testament can give the careful reader an understanding of the Christian doctrine, yet none but the Gospels discuss the man, through his words and deeds, who pioneered these principles. If a person wished to learn about Plato, he would ask Socrates or another close associate (that is, of course, only if Plato, himself, were not available to respond), he would, rightfully, not assume that the random Grecian citizen would be capable of holding a meaningful conversation on the subject unless he were in some manner familiar with Plato. So it is with Jesus as well that one cannot expect to learn about Christianity without drawing knowledge from those persons familiar with Christ. Any other method would produce misinformation, misunderstanding, and possibly a biased or skewed view of the subject of the investigation. Therefore, it can be concluded that to best understand Jesus Christ in his role as founder of the Christian religion a careful study of his life and teachings must be undertaking and the Gospels, which as a rule lay claim to an "inside track" on these events, are the obvious best choice. The Christian community is now left with the decision as to which Gospel or Gospels are to be accepted and which are to be denied canonical status.

There are two logical and opposite paths which can be taken at this point. In this paper, they shall be referred to as the Marcionian and the Tatian perspectives. The Marcionian perspective involves the acceptance of one Gospel as the binding truth and denies all other Gospels this standing. More specifically Marcion, himself, was partial to the Gospel of Luke. His position on the subject of Gospel inclusion was that with only one Gospel as official scripture the critics who cite Gospel confliction as a sign of religious falsity could be more easily combated. His hypothesis is correct in that with only one official story of the life and words of Jesus, there would be no internal conflict, and it should be noted that for this purpose, the Gospel of Luke makes an excellent choice since it is Luke who seems to be not only an excellent writer of Greek text but who also lends a historical perspective to the life of Jesus and, unlike other Gospel authors, has written a sequel which is called the book of Acts. Choosing this Gospel allows the Christian church to portray Jesus as something other than a mythic and non-existent leader; it puts Jesus into a setting which can be identified and is familiar to the average reader. It further allows the church to show, through the continuity of the Gospel and Acts literature, a link between Jesus Christ and the development of the early church. All these things together bring Jesus into focus as a real person who lived and influenced the lives of his many Christian followers which has the effect of staving off the critics who would use inconsistency and source reliability as an attack against the early Christian church. It is also possible that Marcion was simply following Paul's lead by proclaiming the righteousness of only one gospel. Paul consistently refers to the Gospel of Christ in the singular and has stated his belief in Galatians 1:7 that there is only one Gospel. Paul's system of thought has been quite influential in the current theology of the Christian church and if Marcion wanted to follow Paul's example, he would have to conform appropriately. It cannot be denied that Marcion had many good reasons for choosing the position he did.

The Tatian perspective falls on the opposing end of the Gospel inclusion spectrum with a belief in using many different Gospels as canonical sources for information about Jesus. According to this perspective, these source Gospels would be reviewed, evaluated and, after gaining a clearer idea of the truth of Jesus' life, synthesized into a single cohesive Gospel. Tatian has done this in his work, the Diatessaron, by using the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; some would also claim that he was influenced by other Gospels as well. His theory involved the belief that multiple portraits of the same thing must, by the simple law of common sense, be intrinsically better than relying on a single portrait. The multiple portraits would give the examiner a more thorough picture of the object portrayed. However, he, like Marcion, was concerned about the apparent inconsistencies in the various Gospels and how that may look to the critic---or worse, to the prospective Christian---thus for clarity's sake, Tatian chose to compose a new Gospel, the aforementioned Diatessaron, based strictly on the extant Gospels and thus merge the various portraits into a fused whole which would be as internally consistent as the canon proposed by Marcion.

There is yet another popular opinion on the subject which has been set forth most eloquently by a Bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus, who said that there is only one legitimate Gospel of Christ, but four worthy literary shapes which the Gospel has taken. He was referring to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which, by his day, had come into common use. This new perspective seems to be more pragmatic, in that it accepts Paul's notion that Jesus' true Gospel can only be singular, for he did not live multiple lives, but also recognizes that different people will recall and interpret the events in different ways. This notion seems the most sensible of the three options mentioned thus far for several reasons. Firstly, in the Marcionian perspective, the reader is expected to gain a clear and comprehensive understanding of the life and teachings of Jesus with only one witness to rely upon. Though Luke may have been a devoted Christian, his Gospel, just as with the other Gospels, emphasizes those aspects of the Word that he wanted emphasized; thorough as it may be, his Gospel is not all-inclusive and never claims to be. Secondly, the Tatian perspective requires that a person should, after careful study, pick-and-choose which parts should stay, which should go, which are right, and which are not. This might be acceptable if that editor were someone who had lived with and followed Jesus, but it is wholly impossible at this late date to find a candidate with the ability to meet this criterion. Anyone editing the Gospels at this point could not do so with any degree of assurity and the finished product could no more be counted upon for accuracy than the sources from which it was derived. It seems that, to Irenaeus, obtaining the truth about Jesus was deemed more important than the defensibility of the canonical Gospels. Ireneaus' perspective, it seems, welcomes the inconsistencies that the two previous perspectives denounced by accepting them as natural variations that arise when different artists paint the same scene. Ireneaus expects and accepts this, and furthermore, he seems to prefer this. One portrait may show something about the scene that the other portrait does not. This is the beauty of difference---to make the scene complete. So, while no single perspective can be said to be absolutely correct in all ways, it seems that Ireneaus provides Christianity with the most sensible solution to the dilemma---canonize several different versions of the Gospel of Jesus and thus gain the benefit of many different views on his life and teachings.

The enormous task which now lies ahead is the determination of which Gospels to canonize. While there have been over 30 Gospels discovered to date, not all Gospels are suitable for canonization and for this reason Christians must be selective in choosing which ones to accept as "official" reference to the life of Christ and the doctrine he taught. A set of criteria must be developed to filter what enters into the New Testament. Based on earlier discussions in this paper, one can deduce that the first piece of criterion should be some form of association with Jesus or his direct disciples since any further distancing from the subject of the Gospel will be reflected in the Gospel writing itself. This first piece of criterion narrows the list dramatically to the following Gospels; Matthew, John, Mark, Luke, Thomas, James, Peter, and Philip. Of these remaining Gospels, several stand out as not having one or more of the familiar elements of traditional Gospel-genre writings. The Gospel of Thomas, which claims to contain the "secret words" given to Didymos Judas Thomas by Jesus, is a collection of sayings, typically beginning with "Jesus said...", does not discuss, in more than an inadvertent manner through sayings associated with events, the life of Jesus making this a less than satisfactory source for learn about the life of Jesus. The Gospel of James also proves not to be up to the task of retelling the story of Christ's life due to its engrossment in the discussion of Mary's birth and the subsequent virgin birth of Jesus. Further, James does not substantially delve into the teachings of the Messiah nor his death on the cross---a major theme of other Gospels as shall soon be discussed. The Gospel of Peter, which we possess only in part, seems closer to the traditional Gospel style; however, the text we have is short and contains only the account of Jesus' persecution on the cross while omitting, due to lost manuscript, the majority of his life and teachings. One point of note here is the unusual resurrection scene presented by Peter. He describes a heavenly host descending from heaven to spirit away the raised Jesus and all this is done within plain sight of the guards of his tomb. This account differs so substantially from the other discussions of the resurrection that, had we the full text of the Gospel of Peter, it still might not be included in the canon. The Gospel of Philip, discovered in the same collection as the Gospel of Thomas, is written in proper Gnostic fashion. The Gnostics tended to believe that true knowledge could not come from the written word, but only through the "living speech" according to Ireneaus in his work Against Heresies (3:1-3) and thus the Gospel of Philip is written not as a biography or a discussion of doctrine, but as a text on meditative ideas and symbolic gesturing which can best be explained through example as follows:

This type of mystic interpretive language is not typical of the Gospel genre and, in addition to this, the Gospel of Philip does not discuss the life of Jesus. Some might argue that it does not even correctly reflect the teachings of the man.

Having disqualified all but the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, a discussion of their relative merits must be entered into. Of the remaining Gospels, it is now generally believed that the Gospels of Matthew and John were not written by apostles, as once believed, and Luke and Mark, contrary to the original idea, may not have been associated with the apostles either. So why then should they still be considered for canonical acceptance? Because they are the earliest known accounts of the life of Jesus and therefore are more reliable than other later Gospels. Still, it seems logical that if indeed these four Gospels are not as closely related as one might have otherwise thought, a closer look at the quality of their reliability and their use to the average Christian reader should be obtained. Certain questions must be answered before including them into the New Testament. Do they serve a purpose? What purpose do they serve? Are they reasonably true to the word of Jesus? And finally, taken together, is this group of Gospels going to provide the Christian church with a well-rounded view of the wisdom which Jesus preached and lived by as well as the message which Jesus brought with him and intended for his followers to spread? To answer these questions, an in-depth examination of these Gospels will be undertaken.

The inclusion of the Gospel of Matthew would serve a multitude of purposes. Beyond being a reasonably accurate portrayal of the life of Jesus, inasmuch as can be determined by modern scholarly exegesis, Matthew paints a picture of Jesus' deeds and words which grounds them firmly in the known Judaic history with a strong emphasis on Old Testament law which he is careful to explain that Jesus proclaims it to be correct and binding as exemplified in Matthew 5:17. It is noteworthy that there are instances when Jesus does side against the Old Testament law. He is shown to do so three times in Matthew 5:31-43; however, this is the exception and not the rule as adduced by the many times in which the Gospel of Matthew tells us that Jesus defends the Judaic laws. Moreover, Jesus is seen as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy in Matthew 2:15 and 8:17. Matthew seems to distill his image of Christ and his teaching through Old Testament prophecy and doctrine which has the effect of giving Christianity a history or perhaps arguing that it already had one in conjunction with the Jews---something which many Christians and most Jews did not acknowledge. The popular layman opinion was that Christianity was a new religion and this rationale was used as a basis for attack and prejudice on the newly formed Christian community. Matthew shows that Christianity has a religious history and it is the Jews which have diverged from the faith, not the other way around.

The Gospel of Mark is perhaps less factually accurate, though not unacceptably so, than the four other Gospels being discussed and this is where its weakness lies. This is evidenced by the severe redaction seen in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke4 which are widely believed to be derivative works of the Gospel of Mark which was written years before any other Gospel. Mark's Gospel seems to have an emphasis on the pre-resurrection teachings of Jesus which stands in contrast to Paul's letters which demonstrate a profound interest in the theology of Jesus' death at the cross and his subsequent resurrection. Again a quandry is presented and the reader, who is most likely going to be familiar with Paul and his importance to the theology of the Christian church, might be inclined to find the common message or central theme present in both. Nevertheless, in doing so, the reader detracts from the richness of diversity in the portraits of Jesus. Mark may not be in total agreement with Paul or other prominent theologians as to the particular emphasis of Jesus' teachings but he certainly does not deny the significance of the theology of the cross. Here also lies its hidden strength. While Mark does not entirely accurately depict the events of Jesus' life it is only due to his emphasis on the works of Jesus and not geographical or chronological accuracy. As examples of this emphasis, one can turn to the many references to Jesus' miracles (Mark 1:25, 1:41, 2:11, 3:5, 4:39, 6:41-42, and over 10 other direct references to miracle acts.) and suffering (Mark 8:31, 9:30-31, 10:33-34 as well as the entire account of the crucifixion and torturous death of Jesus.) and the lessons to be learned therefrom. Mark, unlike some apocryphic Gospel authors, does not discuss miracles for their own sake but instead discusses them as they pertain to what Jesus taught. In this Gospel, the reader gains a clear idea of Jesus as a human, without denying his divine significance, whose example is shown as an inspiration to all.

Luke's expertly crafted Gospel brings history into the Christian picture, albeit in a far different manner than Matthew. Rather than concentrating on the history of Christianity, Luke concentrates on the Christianity in history. He uses real-world events and places to create a "stage" which will be recognizable to the Christian and non-Christian reader and thereby places Christianity in the firm position of fact, showing these depicted stories as having actually occurred, and pulls it out of the realm of fantasy and imagined mythology. By referencing other events and associating them chronologically to Gospel events, he gives Christianity its reality. Take, as an example, the following passage from the Gospel of Luke:

Here Luke depicts the story of John receiving the word of God, yet before discussing the story itself, he paints an explicit picture of when and where this took place and goes further to discuss John's lineage so as to place him wholly in a setting which the typical reader will identify and accept, thus making it far easier for that reader to accept the story itself.

At this point, one might conclude that the Christian community could gain a reasonably clear understanding of Jesus' life and teachings with just the above three mentioned Gospels and they would be correct. The Gospel of John deviates from the standard Gospel genre ever so slightly---but meaningfully. It is feasible to postulate that, since John is believed to have been written last of the four main Gospels discussed herein, he recognized that the events of Jesus' life had been satisfactorily retold and therefore chose a fresh approach to the discussion of Jesus. He does tell the story of Jesus' life, for if he did not we might have some difficulty calling his work a Gospel, and yet his story takes on an entirely different significance. Some philologists have speculated that the Gospel of John is as different from the other Gospels as the Gospel of Mark was from previous Christian writings about Jesus. True or otherwise, John's work seems to have built upon the Gospel genre, improving it, rather than breaking away from it as Mark did from the earlier Christian documents and so John can still stand as a form of Gospel. Having established this, the discussion must turn to its proposed merits as a canonical Gospel. Many have said that John wrote a sort of "fill-in-the-blank" Gospel in that he speaks about those aspects of Jesus' life which are not discussed in the other Gospels. Found in the Gospel of John are many events that cannot be found in other Gospels but still possess a significance. Examples include Jesus' meeting with Nicodemus in John 3:1-21, the scene described in John 11:35 of Jesus weeping at the tomb of Lazarus before resurrecting him, and the discourse with the Samaritan at the well in Sychar in John 4:7-26. This Gospel seems to contain an interesting synthesis of the Hebraeistic and the Hellenistic philosophies of the time. John's use of the Logos idea was distinctly a Greek-influenced thought and he often referred to the enemies of Jesus as the "Jews." At the same time, however, though his use of the Logos was Greek-influenced, it was originated in the Old Testament book of Genesis as were many ideas he put forth. His Hebraeistic belief in God was naturally modified by his Grecian worldview and background giving him a distinctly unique perspective on the teachings of Christ which the other Gospel authors did not possess. John's Gospel helps to define what Jesus' relationship was with respect to the Jewish-Christian faith. He alone discusses Jesus as "the way" and "the light" and shows Christ to be the path to salvation.

The four Gospels discussed above give the reader an excellently well-rounded portrayal of Jesus, the man, the teacher, the Christ, and the way. They show the Christian community, with Matthew, that through Jesus, it is grounded firmly in the Judaic past and is not an upstart cult with no true meaningfulness. They show the Christian community, with Mark, that Jesus' teachings are to be used as an example for community. Mark also shows us Jesus' divinity and his humanity through the stories of his miracles and suffering. The Gospels further show the Christian community, with Luke, that it has a reality and concreteness which serves to fortify a faith in the stories to the reader. And finally, the Gospels show the Christian community, with John, the theological importance of the Christ figure as represented by Jesus. These Gospels do have their differences, but also they have their similarities. All of them concentrate on the teachings and life of Jesus and how that relates the Christian community to God and not just sayings or dissertations on theology. All of them accept the importance of Jesus' death at the cross for mankind's sins. All of them accept Jesus as the true messiah as expected in Old Testament prophecy. So it is seen that four portraits from differing angles do in fact give the observer a fuller and more complete rendering on the scene. These Gospels should be canonical due to the merits of what each one, individually, can teach the reader about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

Make A Comment

Dratkcuf

Posted on 2006-08-17 at 15:00

I'll admit it's a bit wierd, but the parents names are Toidi and Norom so this is a HUGE step up!

Make A Comment

A question to consider

Posted on 2006-06-08 at 08:33

What does it mean to say that the Jews are the "Chosen People"? We know at it's base it means "chosen to be in a covenant with God" but does it mean more than that?

Is it an exclusivist model? Can others join into the chosenness of the Jewish people? Are converted jews also members of the chosen people? Is this chosen status a form of ethnocentrism? At heart, the question, I suppose, becomes what do we mean when we say the "jewish community"? Does the claim come with assumptions of superiority? Purpose?

I ask because I also note the many Christian, Islamic, and Hindu groups that claim "Chosen People" status. It's interesting to compare the claims of chosenness among the various groups. There's nothing more to this post than my interest in that question.

Now, go discuss amongst yourselves.

Make A Comment

To what extent is our Will free?

Posted on 2006-04-27 at 07:53

Brought up in a discussion on slashdot:

Jose M.R. Delgado, M.D. published Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society. From that book, he states:

Consider also Richard Dawkins' The Extended Phenotype (in the chapter titled "Host Phenotypes of Parasite Genes"):

Make A Comment

A short koan

Posted on 2006-04-26 at 09:02

A Buddhist master and his pupils were walking through the forest discussing the nature of illusion when they stumbled quite by accident on a old statue of the Gautama Buddha.

The students stared the hoary relic, in awe of it's beauty and age. Then the master spoke. "Look at the relic. What do you see?"

One student said, "I see a great gift from Buddha." and he suggested bringing it back to the temple that it may be used for daily worship.

Another said, "I see a beautiful work of art." and he suggested that it be brought to a museum, where it could be properly safegaurded and enjoyed for years.

Another said, "I see a national treasure." and he suggested that it be given to the government so that the nation may never lose this piece of its heritage.

The master stood silent listening to the answers. After the last student finished, the master pulled a small ax from his belt and walked up to the statue. "Do you want to know what I see?" The students offered an emphatic yes.

At that signal, the master lifted the ax over his head and brought it crashing down on the statue. Again and again, he brought the ax viciously on the buddha, until the statue in a thousand fragments lie and the ax handle itself cracked from the force of his blows. When he was done, he turned to his students---the destroyed relic behind him---and spoke.

"No ax, no Buddha."

The master and the students did not speak as they walked back to the temple.

Make A Comment

Communist China's first international religious gathering

Posted on 2006-04-13 at 08:18

Buddhist monks and scholars from all over the world are in Hangzhou, China for a Buddhist conference and forum.

China has about 100 million Buddhists and China hopes that the World Buddhist Forum will begin the smooth relations between the religion population and the formally atheist communist party. Additionally, China hopes that the conference will help to repair its reputation in the world as a place of religious intolerance.

Undercutting those agendii, the Dalai Lama---the spiritual leader of the Buddhists---was not invited to attend. China regard him as a dissenting voice and a potentially disruptive attendee. Qi Xiaofei, vice-director of the state administration for religious affairs, explained, "The Dalai Lama is not only a religious figure, but is also a long-time stubborn secessionist who has tried to split his Chinese motherland and break the unity among different ethnic groups."

Currently worship is permitted only through state-run organizations. Loyalty to religious groups outside those state-controlled organizations is often punished. In the case of Buddhism, the state has appointed Gyaltsen Norbu as the Panchen Lama---the second most signifigant Buddhist title behind the Dalai Lama---even though the Dalai Lama has already appointed his own Panchen Lama. Gyaltsen Norbu is in attendence at the World Buddhist forum as the figurehead for Chinese official Buddhism. Some reports suggest that the other Buddhists in attendence are shunning the state-appointed Lama.

China's President Hu Jintao will be visiting Washington next week, and there exists some speculation that this conference is partly an attempt to ease relations for that trip.

It seems that religion has not lost its efficacy in the modern world when a government so powerful as China fears it so much as to squelch its practice and when a government so powerful as the United States fears it so much as to take up its causes against all reason.

Make A Comment

How may we appease you, Oh Great Sun God?

Posted on 2006-03-29 at 08:31

Oh great and powerful Sun God, do not leave us to die a cold and lonely death. Come back to us to shed your warmth and your occasional firey spat of justice! Be not angry with our blasphemers who called your absence the "ultimate astronomical show".

Though your indignation lasted just three of our mortal hours as you showed your anger to Africa, Turkey and Central Asia, it was a terrifying three hours, where your faithful wept openly and sought reconciliation with you, Great Blazing One.

Know that when the Moon God's vile shadow first besmirched your red visage at sunrise on the east coast of Brazil, we prayed that she would be punished for her crime! And when the Moon God, in infinite foolishness chased your glowing face across the Atlantic Ocean to the African land of Ghana, we wailed and gnashed our teeth while the vile residents of the doomed city of Accra filled the streets to take joy in your suffering. It is said that on this day did one of the sinners of Ghana name the event "the most amazing sight" and "a must see experience". My eyes seep tears of sadness at the recounting.

As you were chased further into the deserts of southern Libya where more errant nonbelievers gathered to point and gawk at the viciousness of the Moon Bitch; Lo', the sight of your torment, which lasted four minutes and seven seconds, was as watching puppies being gutted.

As if to punctuate your torture by the Errant God of the Moon, Nasa and Britain's Royal Institute of Astronomy gathered with thousands of jeering sinners to watch your torment from a Roman amphitheatre in Turkey. Though surely not the first such audience of atrocity in a Roman amphitheatre, it was assuredly the most heinous.

Spake Jay Pasachoff---professor of astronomy at Williams College, Massachusetts---after he had observed this event, "It was more fabulous even than we expected." May he rot in that special roped off section of hell reserved for lawyers and the guy who invented the seat belt alarm car buzzer.

I only pray that you can forgive us our transgression and return to us. I vow to hold the moon in scorn forevermore. Amen.

Make A Comment

On Being Human and the Art of the Bitch Slap

Posted on 2006-03-21 at 08:10

What is with people who don't want to help others?

I understand not wanting to help them in the wrong way. I get that. My familial history drove that point deep into my skull years ago. But at all?!?

What is it that makes a human being lose that most basic drive---empathy? What emotional callouses allows a person look at the suffering of others and say "I'm cool with that"?

Sometimes I wish I could be given special dispensation to bitch slap those who need it. It might help.

The Iraqis had it coming! *bitch slap*. Who cares about runaways? *bitch slap*. Poor people are only poor because they are lazy. *bitch slap*. Inmates brought it on themselves, so I don't care if the conditions in our prisons are bad. *bitch slap*. Rascism is gone and black people need to get over what happened 300 years ago. *bitch slap*.

Yes, I think the bitch slap is a form on immediate punishment that should be reinstituted; a sort of Ike Turner style justice of the street. It seems to me that it would work wonders. People wouldn't say as much insensitive, ignorant crap if they thought there was a chance that they might get a red faced smack down over it. I mean, if it's good enough for the Submariner:

But I'm not the policy maker. Perhaps I should write my Senators and Congresscritter....

Make A Comment

UltraChrist

Posted on 2006-02-22 at 07:33

What would Jesus do if he returned to Earth and discovered he was wildly out of touch with modern trends? Don a Spandex costume and fight sin on the streets of New York City, of course! But as always, he faces several obstacles: a disapproving Father; the Antichrist, in the guise of the New York City Parks Commissioner; and the temptations of a beautiful seamstress.

Make A Comment

Know Thyself

Posted on 2006-02-14 at 08:13

The world around us is not the world that is, but rather the world we see. When we are upset the world seems a darker place. If we are pleased, the world seemed soft and warm. If we are sick, the world seems drab and miserable. If the world is half created and half perceived, then who are you?

Yes, it's a real question.

Make A Comment

Word of the Day: Dharma

Posted on 2006-02-06 at 07:06

(DHAR-muh) noun

1. Duty; correct behavior.
2. Law, especially the universal law of all things.
3. Proper expression of religion.

Dharma comes to us from the Sanskrit word of the same name and in that language also carries with it the connotation of "duty" in addition to the above definitions. Ultimately, it comes from the Indo-European root dher- (meaning to hold firmly or support). Dher- is the root source of words like "firm", "affirm", "confirm", "farm", "fermata", and "firmament".

"The most important pedagogic dharma that should guide the teacher in such a situation is that he should not hastily jump to the conclusion that his learners are unfit, dull, stupid, lacking in motivation, can never be made to learn and so on."
Dr. Aruna Chalam Angappan; The Teacher's Handicap, the Learners' Advantage; Yemen Times; Jan 9, 2006.

Make A Comment

Making Progress Personal

Posted on 2006-02-03 at 16:21

Below is a snippet of something I said in an email conversation I was having with my friend, Bob. I think it's of general enough interest that I'm posting it here.

Don't worry Bob. I still agree with you that Philosophers are fags. ;-)

Make A Comment

America and the New Islamic Movement

Posted on 2006-02-02 at 11:41

This documentary explores the lives of several white Muslim Texan families and their views about Islam and life in the American southwest.

Some in the Bible Belt are transferring their allegiance from the Bible to the Quran because, for some Christians the church is becoming too religiously liberal.

Some questions naturally arise from this documentary that are worth considering:

• Have you ever looked into the beliefs of Muslims? If so, what opinions did you form and why?
• Do you think it is possible for you to convert to Islam?
• Why do you think the Christians in this documentary sought out Islam? What implications does that have on Christianity?
• How would you feel about living in the U.S. if the majority of Americans began converting to Islam?
• What influence do you think a mainstream American Muslim Movement would have on Islam globally?
• What influence do you think a white Islamic Movement would have on the existing Black Muslim Movement?

Make A Comment

Four basic categories of ethical philosophy

Posted on 2006-01-18 at 16:27

Normative
Associated mainly with absolutism, normative ethics tries to prescribe or describe a norm or standard of morality to which all people should be held. Often this is done through either an appeal to monotheism (i.e., He said so, therefore...) or statistical methods (i.e., All people everywhere believe x is wrong therefore x is wrong).

Teleological
Teleological (from the Greek telos meaning end or goal) is distinct from Deontological in that it stresses intrinsic value in some external thing relating to an act or intent. Usually that external thing involves a purpose from which the act either deviates from or aligns with or an end which can be said to be bad. Breaking a promise is wrong in that it is against God's will or produces bad effects but not because it simply is wrong, for instance.

Deontological
Deontological (from the Greek deon meaning duty) is distinct from Teleological in that it stresses intrinsic value in an act or intent without reference to its consequences. Breaking a promise is wrong in itself regardless of its consequences, for instance.

Autonomy
As Kant understood it, autonomy is the state of man. It is his freedom from influence---the ability to act from pure reason. Basically, he believes that man is rational and as a rational creature, it can act in accordance with a conception of laws (stopping at a stop light, for instance, as opposed to natural laws such as gravity) and when he chooses to obey those conceptualized laws, he is exercising his autonomy. Were he not to obey those laws, he would be acting heteronomously, that is, under another influence such as desire or natural inclination.

Make A Comment

Five great men of ethical philosophy

Posted on 2006-01-18 at 15:34

Aristotle
This philosopher is associated with an ethical theory known as virtue ethics. Virtue ethics essentially states that virtue is good. He, of course, lists those virtues so as to resolve any ambiguity. Those virtues consist of characteristics that are between extremes. Whereas neither cowardice nor fearlessness is praise-worthy, bravery or courage is, for instance. Ultimately the proper exercise of character, exemplified in virtue will bring happiness, which is the one true ultimate end. Therefore, the good is defined as the activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Practicing virtue builds it, making it a self-feeding cycle.

Jeremy Bentham
This philosopher is associated with an ethical theory known as utilitarianism. Bentham's brand of utilitarianism, classical hedonism, essentially affirms the belief that pleasure is the only intrinsic value while pain is the only intrinsic evil. These two factors should drive all moral decisions in that we should always seek to produce the greatest good---measured, using Bentham's hedonistic calculus, by its intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extant---for the greatest number of people while seeking to inflict the least pain to the least number of people.

Thomas Aquinas
This philosopher is associated with an ethical theory known as natural law theory. Natural law theory essentially states that which is natural is good. Natural is defined as God's purposes. Man's natural inclinations, in this system, are as follows in order of inclination: self preservation, procreation, social existence, intellectual curiosity. Since it is concerned with purpose, this theory is teleological. Since it based on the idea of one true God and His true purposes, it is absolutist. Since it is concerned with purpose, intent is paramount, rather than consequences. Aquinas, believes that man's natural ends are essentially good, and that all those ends all eventually point to a contemplation of God---God being the end of every intellectual substance, according to Aquinas.

J.S. Mill
This philosopher is associated with an ethical theory known as utilitarianism. Mill's brand of utilitarianism, what has been called eudaimonistic utilitarianism, affirms a position somewhat similar to Bentham's brand, in that both believe in the greatest good for the greatest number. Mill, however, seeks to establish a qualitative difference between pleasure and happiness (hence the term eudaimonistic)and even between qualities of happiness. Put most succinctly by Mill himself, "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."

Friedrich Nietzsche
This philosopher is associated with an ethical theory known as perspectivism. He affirms that there are essentially two types of morality: slave and master. Through this system, Nietzsche attempts to demonstrate a need to "revaluate" our values. Being a relativist, he sees all good and evil as a matter of perspective.

Immanuel Kant
This philosopher is associated with an ethical theory known as deontological ethics. Deontological ethics affirms the primacy of duty in the practice of the good. For Kant, this requires establishing a way to know duty, thus reason is applied to the categorical imperative (writting in the language of logic that would be "Premise, therefore not not Premise"). Since he states that by definition all people are morally responsible, they can and should always apply this imperative to moral situations to determine moral correctness. Being autonomous requires that morality be exercised since it is only in obeying a conception of a law that we exercise freedom. Also, the Will plays a vital part in his theory because he establishes that only the Will can actually be good, thus intention, rather than consequence, becomes the central moral pivot.

Make A Comment

Ghost man terrorizes village, IT workers chuckle

Posted on 2006-01-17 at 13:58

According to Reuters, An Indian man in prison was reported dead to his family by a distant relative who saw him admitted to the prison hospital. Not so interesting right? It gets better.

Turns out he never died. Indeed, he came home and his family and friends, who thought him dead were shocked to see him still alive. Good news, you say? Sit back down. There's more.

Shock turned to fear as children screamed "Ghost! Ghost!" and ran away from him. Villagers locked their doors and hid. His own brothers fled from him when he showed himself. Just a poor first reaction? No. Not in India.

Villagers have continued to ostracize him under the assumption that he is an apparition come to haunt them. The ghost felon in question has filed a complaint with the local police who have stepped in to mediate the confusion. Can the situation take a rational turn now? Not quite. There's yet more insane-in-the-membrane left in these people.

The village council has determined that they are reasonable men of science. They will accept his claim to life if he can but prove he is not a ghost. To quote the modern sage Napoleon Dynamite, "Idiots!"

The next time your employer mentions outsourcing work to these guys, remember this. And laugh.

Make A Comment

Pay for Pray

Posted on 2006-01-10 at 13:42

I could probably make a good living by offering my for-pay services to pray for people. I could tout my background and trump it up to make it sound like I'm some sort of wandering mendicant or holy hermit, then offer my direct pipeline to God for a fee. I could even abstract it out further by offering it on a web site where I tell people that I'll pray for them if they click an ad (thereby generating revenue) and they email me their prayer request. I wouldn't actually have to pray for them, but they wouldn't know that. I could even automate the prayer request response with some heuristic language reply logic to make it seem like a person instead of a form letter. People would feel better and I would be richer.

I could totally capitalize on my degree. I mean, why should Pay Robertson be the only guy locally riding God's coattails to the bank?!?

Of course, if I did all this I'd go to that special roped-off section of hell reserved for crooked politicians, corrupt judges, and people who rip other people off for 3 dollars and 75 fucking cents because they are too stupid and cheap to check their god damn records and write me a check for the amount I'm actually owed instead of some fantasy number he made up like an asshole!

Having morals sucks ass. I can't carry out any of my most ingenuitive plans.

Make A Comment

Milton's Mythological Restructuring Of The Fall

Posted on 2006-01-09 at 15:33

Abstract
Concerning Milton's poetic license in his recasting of the myth of Genesis and the Fall of Man.

Paper
Milton's work, Paradise Lost, retells the story of the Garden of Eden as found in Genesis, the first book in the canon of Hebrew Scriptures known as the Torah or Bible. This story relates the tale of the fall from grace which anthropos, the original man, supposedly had early on in human history. Due to the popularity of the story, it is not surprising that Milton, an educated man and poet, chose it as the subject for one of his works. What is worthy of note, however, is the multitude of ways in which he deviated from the original story. For example, while it is true that many are under the misunderstanding that Satan plays an important role in the Genesis story of the Fall, he does not. He is, in fact, not mentioned even once in the Book of Genesis and yet Milton confers on him a large role. Milton was a man educated in the Hebrew Bible and language from a young age by a tutor his father had hired, Thomas Young (c.f., Hutchinson 8ff.) and so it was unlikely that Milton was unaware of his discrepancies. It seems that for the reader to fully understand Milton's theology of the Fall, one must understand first what was changed in the story from the original and second what theological significance the change has.

The original story of the fall of man is presented in Genesis 3:1-7 and is abbreviated below:

In this story, as presented in Genesis, the two are tempted by the forbidden fruit at the prompting of a serpent who is later punished for his role in the affair. Thus they fall from grace and are cast from Eden to "toil" (Genesis 3:17) for all their days until death, which after the fall is now an eminent reality in their lives (Genesis 3:19). Before any detailed exegesis is begun, one must consider the work being dealt with. Genesis is not an historical work designed to describe accurately the early world and its origins. Genesis is a mythological work which is designed to describe accurately the relationship of God to his earthly creation and more precisely the relationship of God to his chosen people---the Jews. The exegesis of genesis, then, should account for a mythological framework and allow for the historical inaccuracies typically found in mythological works.

As any mythology, the book of Genesis makes heavy use of a complex symbol system which the early Jews would have invested with particular meaning. The fact that this symbol system is not immediately at hand for the average modern reader has caused some problems. Many of these problems arise as a result of the unusual nature of the characters in the story. The characters associated with The Fall are Adam, Eve, and the serpent. Some investigation reveals that the Hebrew word Adam---which means man---is intentionally similar to the Hebrew word Adamah---which means earth, dust, or ground. Also, the character of Adam was used early in the work to refer to all men. It was not until later editors of the story began adding new parts that Adam became an individual rather than collective man. The original concept of the character of Adam, then, was meant to represent the race of men as a whole and their relation to the ground which is God's other creation. Genesis, for these reasons, is notoriously ambiguous about Adam's status. Eve, on the other hand, seems less entangled by conflicting portrayals. Her name, which is similar the Hebrew word for life, shows that she is quite literally "the mother of all living" (Genesis 3:20), but moreover, she is also blamed and punished by God harsher than Adam for her apparently more significant role in The Fall. Though Adam was there with her with she was tempted, and though he did nothing to stop it, he is still punished less severely than her. The third character, the serpent, has been the primary point of confusion and misunderstanding in the story. Nowhere does it say that this serpent is Satan. Satan does not appear in the Torah (The first 5 books of the Bible also known as the Law) at all. It is not until the Kethuvim (The collection of Hebrew books known also as the Writings---as distinct from the Torah [law] and the Nebi'im [prophets]), in 1 Chronicles 21:1, that his name is uttered. Yet, for all this, most modern readers see the serpent as Satan in serpent form. The cause of this is likely the much later references to Satan as being analogous to a serpent or dragon. Though later Jews made this symbolic connection, the writers and editors of Genesis did not. The serpent's mythological meaning must be found elsewhere. Many scholars now believe that rather than a symbol of whole evil, the serpent may have been a symbol of life. It is known that many, if not most, primitive peoples associate the serpent or snake with life and rebirth because of its ability to shed its own skin seasonally and begin anew. If the ancient writers of Genesis were also working under this mythological symbology, then the story of The Fall takes on new meaning. Rather than the serpent representing that which is purely evil, it begins to represent that which is a synthesis of good and evil. Genesis becomes a story of man's inevitable entrance into life which has its temptations and its shortcomings, but also its joys and its invaluable experiences. Through it all, the Fall tells us that though we may stray in life, God is ever-present and ever-protective when needed (c.f. Genesis 3:21 & 4:15). Thus the myth of the Fall establishes an understanding of the nature of God's relationship to us from the beginning as one of unconditional concern for His creations.

Milton, as he attempts to recast the myth for a later audience, brings with him certain assumptions---primarily from his Puritanical background---which color his interpretation of the story. It is apparent from reading Paradise Lost that Milton was trying to convey the same truths that were presented there. He recognized that these truths were not present in the objects of the story but rather in the meaning and symbology of the story:

It was not apparent accuracy in objects he strove for, but symbolic accuracy in meaning. Milton foreshadows the dynamics of The Fall as early as the creation story when Adam and Eve are first shown to be distinct in their inclinations. Eve, upon her creation, is transfixed by her own mirror image (c.f. Paradise Lost IV:443 ff) in a pool of water nearby---reminiscent of the story of Narcissus--- while Adam, in Book VIII:277ff, begins his life mindful of God's role in this event. Interestingly, this prelapsarian relationship between Adam, Eve, and God is not a mirror image of the one presented in Genesis. Instead of an equal and non-hierarchical relationship between Adam and Eve, Milton begins with Adam as the dominant partner as established by Eve's remark concerning Adam:

This can be contrasted with Genesis' understanding of their relationship as equal until after the Fall when God pronounced that man "shall rule over" woman (Genesis 3:16) as punishment for her sin whereas in the prelapsarian state, they were equal (c.f. Genesis 1:27-28 & 3:18-23).

To his defense, Milton had the difficult task of presenting an Adam and Eve who seemed believable, poetic, and yet not superficial or lofty. They are the archetypal civilized savages---an oxymoron which can only sustain existence in theory. Portraying their roles and relationships as presented in the book of Genesis is flatly impossible. They are ripe with contradiction partly as a result of their own ambiguity and partly as a result of the brevity of their roles in that earlier story. Genesis gave no substantial dialogue and thus avoided Milton's pitfall. Still, it seems that Milton was aware of this problem. Only in a few places does the dialogue become too philosophical for a savage or too savage for a philosopher. And yet this tension does exist. Whereas in the prelapsarian state of Genesis they are sinless and full of God's glory, the prelapsarian state of Paradise Lost shows them to be inescapably drawn toward the Fall. As Waldock put it in his work Paradise Lost And Its Critics, "[t]here was no way for Milton of making [sic] the transition from sinlessness to sin perfectly intelligible" (Waldock 61). As mentioned earlier, Eve spends her opening scene transfixed by her vanity, but it cannot be ignored that Adam is no saint either. Shortly after his creation Adam, not content with what he has been given, asks for more:

Later, in talking with Raphael, the Angel, he begins to slander even the helpmate which he'd asked for by first telling of his weakness for Eve's "Transported touch" and rather than accepting blame for his weakness he blames either the Maker (God) or Eve herself as a temptress:

"[C]arnal desire is not a surprising sequel to Adam's uxoriousness" according to Kelley in her work, This Great Argument (Kelley 149). Adam and Eve, in Milton's work, already possess those errant tendencies with contribute to the occurrence of the Fall. If fact, Adam and Eve have, by the very nature of possessing these tendencies, already fallen. They were created fallen. Here Milton's theology becomes evident. The Genesis story does not parallel this sentiment. In Genesis, Adam makes no such statements about Eve, nor does he ask for more from God than he is given. God's wisdom is sufficient to account for all of their needs (c.f. Genesis 2:18). Furthermore, Adam's understanding of his own urges is moralized in Milton's work in a way that does not mimic Genesis:

In the above passage man and woman specifically do not consider this a cause of a strange "[c]ommotion." Milton's Puritanical and moralistic upbringing has crept into his work.

Satan's presence in the story thrusts into it a particularly interesting dynamic. He is shown as a fallen angel full of contempt and false pride. It is he, in Paradise Lost, who tempts Eve when she wanders away from Adam. By appealing to her vanity he seduced her into partaking of the forbidden fruit. Thus some would say she was felled rather than fallen by the serpent-disguised Satan. Having left a state of grace, she appealed to Adam to join her and he, not willing to give her up, did just that by eating the fruit as well. The Fall is complete. Madsen, in his work From Shadowy Types To Truth, describes Adam's fall as follows:

The question must then turn to who or what these figures (Adam, Eve, and Satan as the serpent) are meant to represent in Milton's mythological restructuring. One theory which seems supported by the text is the idea that while Adam and Eve may be symbolic of men and women universally, the other beings---angels, demons, and specifically Satan---are physical representations of God's hand in action. Thus the Fall, which in Milton's work is inevitable and expected, becomes God's will. Satan, Raphael and others in the story act as tangible markers of God's intangible work. Through Satan, God frees man to live and learn. Through Raphael, the reader sees God's ever-present protection and help when man needs it most. As if to make this point himself, Milton includes the following passage:

Here God is saying that not only is it through His will that they exist, but moreover, that they exist specifically to do His bidding. As James Sims explained it in his work, The Bible In Milton's Epics, "even these horrible monsters, unknown to themselves, fulfill His purposes" (Sims 157).

Paradise Lost is a story which tells of the relationship between God and His creations. It talks of God as ever-present in the lives of men, ever-caring for them, and even in punishment giving them the gift of life. Is this so different from the story told in Genesis? Though the characters, the crimes, and the plot are utterly different, the story remains substantially unchanged. The myth and its message are brought to a new audience using images that will convey to them the symbolic meaning which the Genesis images conveyed to the early Jewish readers. Milton seems to have succeeded in his endeavor. The Genesis story is retold and his changes, upon analysis, do betray his motives. The myth is recast.

Works Cited:

Other Works Consulted:

Make A Comment

The James Martin Institute of Oxford

Posted on 2006-01-08 at 19:20

I was speaking with an Oxford fellow this morning about science, human advancement, and the role of ethics therein and he referred me to the James Martin Institute. It seems to be in it's early stages, but plans to directly address those issues surrounding the radical polymorphing of humanness that our species is intent upon inflicting (gifting?) on itself. Fascinating.

While on the subject, if you have an interest in such things as living forever and doing so in a healthy manner, you should also check out the Biosingularity blog. It's a well done blog that---unlike my monstrosity of a personal podium---has a point, a focus, and a use.

Am I crazy to consider the possibility that I might reach 200 or even 768 years of age? No, I am not. Not only are we continually advancing the limits of medical science, we are quickening the rate of that advancement with each new advance. What took 30 years to determine a century ago can be tested and resolved in a few years, in a decade or two, it might be resolvable in a matter of weeks. All I need to do is survive until the next breakthrough. Give me 5 more years and I'll be alive to see the next advance to see 10 more years and so on. Am I certain that I'll see 768? No, but I have a far better chance than you might think. And that's no joke.

Make A Comment

Conspiracy Dave?

Posted on 2006-01-03 at 10:19

When did you get your own web site?

Make A Comment

Considering the success of the Intelligent Design push...

Posted on 2005-12-31 at 13:46

The state senate is considering expanding the initiative to the periodic table:

Make A Comment

Choose Wisely

Posted on 2005-11-20 at 08:02

Claim that an alien is melon-balling you in your sleep---you go to the sanitarium. Claim that you've seen the face of Mother Mary in a misshapen bagel---get on Oprah.

Make A Comment

Pat Robertson does not speak for Christianity

Posted on 2005-08-23 at 08:01

I've been informed that we Christians don't say that publically enough. Well then. There it is. Pat is not our spokesman, and if the media saw fit to look for the truth instead of ratings, it would stop fanning the flames of that misconception by posting every insane rambling from the man's mouth. I have confidence, however, that the average American already knew this, but maybe it should be said more often. There. I've said it.

Make A Comment

The Theta Alpha Kappa Shindig Results Are In

Posted on 2005-08-11 at 08:01

The new inductees are a good bunch and I thoroughly enjoyed myself at the House of Wansink. The refreshments were good (I'm a total whore for blueberries!) and the conversation was both pleasant and engaging...except when I said that Kristin's house was full of clutter because it helped to distract her from her profound loneliness. Probably a little too pointed---true, but pointed. Personally, I liked her just fine, but like all of us, she had some problems that needed addressing. I'm not sure they were being addressed back then. I hope they are now.

Make A Comment

Dr. Wansink just called!

Posted on 2005-08-02 at 08:04

Coolness. I have an official Theta Alpha Kappa shindig to attend next week. I wonder if I should show up in full vestment and a scholar's crown? I'd hate to be underdressed.

Make A Comment

A random religious note: Kuan Yin

Posted on 2005-06-20 at 08:01

Kuan Yin ("She who hears our prayers") is the Chinese goddess of mercy, adapted into Buddhism in the form of one of her many transformations, Avalokitesvara. Also referred to as "great mercy and pity", "Salvation from woe", and "The self-existent one with a thousand arms and eyes". Some scholars of world religions have suggested that the Virgin Mary is a Western adaptation of Kuan Yin; there are marked similiarities but it would be difficult to establish a defensible historical connection. A connection between Kuan Yin and the shared human needs of mankind in general, however, is obvious but of little value to authentic scholarship.

"She", until some time in the twelfth century, was a "he"; but this kind of switch is not unusual in Eastern iconography. She is most often represented as a handsome, gracious woman dressed in mostly white, flowing or otherwise beautifully draped, hooded garments. However gracious, she also communicates enormous "power"---sometimes in subtle, more often in obvious (multiple heads, hands, weapons, etc.) ways. In this image she holds the vase with the "holy water" of life and mercy, which she abundantly disperses upon the faithful in response to prayer. She often rides a lion or tiger which suggest her absolute dominion over the powers of nature. That is, if she can dominate the most powerful of beasts, she can control any force of nature. There are literally thousands of forms of this goddess and more being created even today.

Make A Comment

Just went to the VWC RelSt website

Posted on 2005-06-10 at 08:02

They had some quizes on all the big world religions. I smoked em! Is that the best you can do, Dr. Wansink?!? Challenge me, old man, that I may take your crown!

Make A Comment

Moon

Posted on 2005-06-07 at 08:02

Gliding o'er a simple line
  and floating toward her home
The fair faced Luna, aquiline,
  Has wandered thus alone.

Breathing life in every man,
  from savage to savant.
With each wax and with each wan,
  thy visage we avaunt.

To legend, lore and mytheme all
  thy globed form gave birth.
And yet each night that form doth fall
  below the lowly earth.

Joshua, in vaunted tower,
  did bid thy bulk be still.
And shaken by thy mystic power
  "the mariner hath his will."

In Thoth, thy son, was time thus reined.
  And through thy cycling walk
was future's fortune therein gained
  ---Urania's tongueless talk.

Yet man now seeks to bind,
  through mathematics grand,
thy ellipse path as traced behind
  thy transcendental hand.

Kepler and Copernicus
  have seized thy conic course
and through the beaded abacus
  have bound thy boundless force

The sacred tales of midnight dance,
  which science did supplant,
gave thee a giant's countenance
  yet now thou seemst an ant.

Perhaps 'tis true that Thor should run
  from circling blades that sciences spin,
They've deadened Luna---her form undone---
  to deconstruct the myths within.

In days of yore thy wizard's spell
  would earth's clear waters reprimand,
enjoining tides to sink and swell
  and march unto thy stern command.

Neptune, too, then bent his ear
  to hear thy waves crash louder;
The foam and strand, afar and near,
  crushing rock to powder.

Lifting high my telescope
  and watching as you sink,
I howl a simple hymn of hope
  that man might stop to think.

For should he mull and ponder long
  about these things he's done,
then he, like me, might raise a song
  to lift thee o'er the sun.

For unlike us who'll fade away,
  as nature runs her race,
thy corpus yet will always stay
  to grant the tides their pace.

   -Tom Caudron
   -Inspired by my apathy toward humanity (it was a bad semester of college!)

Make A Comment

Loves Labours Confused - Augustine and the Journey to Christianity

Posted on 2005-01-27 at 08:02

Abstract:
Concerning Augustine's transition from a Gnostic knowledge of God to a Christian relationship with God. Augustine's conversion and insight forms the basis of so much of Christianity that study of the subject is central to any study of modern theology.

Paper:
In many ways, the death of Augustine's mother became his moment of true gestalt. Though he had had an earlier moment of insight which led to his conversion experience in the garden in Milan, it was not until his mother's death when, confronted with the need to apply his new-found insight, he truly understood its importance. Until this point, even after his conversion, Augustine existed in a state of anxiety produced by what he might describe as a contest of conflicting wills. It was his mother's death that settled that anxiety.

Augustine seemed to see those two wills as a dialectic between man's covenant with God and his desire for attachment to worldly things---that is to say, between the spirit and the flesh. The tension born of this dynamic conflict within the soul of man, according to Augustine, caused much of man's suffering. At one point, he describes this state of anxiety:

Augustine originally saw this anxiety as an inescapable side-effect of his own humanity. His flawed nature could do nothing but produce the effect. His reasoning in this matter relied heavily on a Manichean---and ultimately Gnostic--- dualistic approach to understanding the human condition. He believed that the mind was of a higher order than the body. This hierarchy created in man the innate ability of free choice---the ability to choose the actions which one will perform in any given situation. "The mind commands the body," Augustine believed, "and is instantly obeyed" (Augustine 147). Yet this same hierarchy was cause for conflict when the mind tried to command the mind. Apparently the mind need not follow its own commands, therefore one cannot command oneself not to want something or not to think something. "The mind commands itself," Augustine added, "and meets resistance" (Augustine 147). Man, under this system of thought, becomes his own most difficult problem.

Added to this dire theory was Augustine's view that Man's will was confused at heart since his fall from grace and now, rather than loving God for His own sake and God's works for the uses they provide, he loved God's works for their own sake and God for the uses He can provide. Man's will is thusly confused and Augustine simply did not see a way to correct that since he could not will himself to change his own will. Prior to his episode in the garden of Milan, Augustine sought after worldly things just for the sake of having them. He chased after women, sought academic prizes, and desired money. Anything that satisfied his desire for the purely sensual was the recipient of his attention. As Augustine put it, "in an ulcerous condition [my soul] thrust itself to outward things, miserable avid to be scratched by contact with the world of the senses" (Augustine 35).

It was Lady Continence, a figure who appeared to him in the garden, who brought Augustine, intellectually, out of the quandary of fighting a losing battle against an evil will. She talked of God's grace as the answer:

Through this experience Augustine became able to accept, logically, the precepts of Christian faith, thus the whole garden incident is often dubbed his conversion experience. However, examination of the text both during and after this experience may indicate that it was only a prequel to the actual moment of his entering into a relationship (or covenant) with God. That moment may have been later, at his mother's death.

It is true that Augustine described a difference of worldview after the garden conversion. He used typically Gnostic imagery when he talked of a "light of relief" which removed his anxiety (Augustine 153). He described a peaceful time when, with his mother, he learned to climb the scale of goodness to reach its near-peak, which he believed was the human mind. As he put it, "we ascended even further by internal reflection and dialogue and wonder at your works, and we entered into our own minds" (Augustine 171). Using the Gnostic, and therefore Manichean, doctrine of salvation through intellectual reflection and special insight, Augustine had taken the next step toward Christianity by being able to embrace its doctrines because of his rational for them. But he had not yet entered into a relationship with God. That was to come a bit later.

The reader gets the impression, through Augustine's writings, that anxiety had left him, as much as it ever would, at this point. As a testament to the falsity of that statement, however, the death of Monica, his mother, crumbles the framework of Augustine's logical-salvation experience. His first substantial test proves to be his true conversion experience. Augustine falls back into an anxiety once again--- this time unsure of his condition or its possible solution. He became, "tortured by a twofold sadness," (Augustine 175) and his mind and body warred again:

Augustine suddenly saw his attachment to his mother, formed of the habit of living with her for so long, as drawing him toward some inappropriate grief. He wrestled with the idea that he had fallen into the habit of loving her for her own sake rather than for her use to God and the world as a Christian. He retired to a bath in hopes that this thing would help resolve his conflict. Again he turned towards worldly things, just as he was wont to do earlier in life, for a salvation that he would never find there. After the bath he found that he was, "exactly the same as before" (Augustine 176). His Gnostic manner of understanding God had not produced in him any relationship with God and therefore he had not learned to truly let go of the world around him. Exhausted from his returned anxious state, he slept. It was this sleep which would herald his actual conversion. In chapter IX, paragraph 33---rather than chapter VII, paragraph 28--- Augustine truly converts to Christianity by accepting its doctrines of salvation and love not simply with his mind, but with his heart.

Suddenly, Augustine, "was glad to weep before [God] about and for her, about [him]self and for [him]self" (Augustine 176). He learned to cry not for his loss of a mother, but for a mother, "who had wept for [him] that [he] might live before [God's] eyes" (Augustine 176). He saw his mother, and the rest of creation no longer as ends, in and of themselves, but as means to know God. "If anyone lists his true merits to you, what is he enumerating before you but your gifts" (Augustine 177)? Augustine has that moment of Christian gestalt, which some call rebirth, here at his mother's death, not in a garden in Milan as has been suggested. "Thereby [Augustine] submitted [his] neck to [God's] easy yoke and [his] shoulders to [God's] light burden" (Augustine 155). Augustine had finally made the transition from a Gnostic knowledge of God to a Christian relationship with God. His conversion was complete.

Make A Comment

God hates shrimp

Posted on 2004-11-12 at 08:03

According to the bible, it is an abomination. Think about that the next time you call homosexuality an abomination. Just a little food for thought (pun intended).

Make A Comment

Gay Marriage

Posted on 2004-11-12 at 08:02

I was talking with someone about Gay Marriage recently. He knows that I am all for it. I see no reason to fret what two adult chose willingly to do as long as they aren't harming themselves or others. He suggested that it was near impossible to change to mind of someone who is against it, however. I told him I disagreed. You just have to know what sorts of things are important to someone opposed to Gay Marriage. It is not disingenous to point out that we should all worry (no matter our views on homosexuality) anytime the government steps in to tell our churches what they can and cannot do. There is room to agree here.

Make A Comment

Coercion and the Selfish Impulse in the Theology of Reihold Niebuhr

Posted on 2004-11-10 at 08:03

Abstract:
Concerning Reinhold Niebuhr's beliefs on Coercion and its role in the society of Man. Writing this paper helped me to form opinions of my own about the nature and role of human selfishness and shortsightedness.

Paper:
Coercion is an integrated component of all extant governing bodies. As individuals living under these systems of government, we must be willing to explore the necessity of any system that uses such force to achieve its own ends. Reinhold Niebuhr, in his work Moral Man and Immoral Society, has attempted just such an exploration. In his inquiry, he has determined that coercion is not morally justifiable, but it is pragmatically justifiable. This conclusion relies heavily on his understanding of human nature, which while positive with respect to many Christian thinkers is none-the-less decidedly negative. He argues that coercion is a necessary tool for both social cohesion and social justice. While both are needed in the ideal society, social cohesion is the most logical first step, since without it there will be no justice. Therefore we will look primarily to his theories of selfishness, reason, and empathy that lead toward his understanding of the problems of social cohesion rather than his theories of benevolence and justice.

Niebuhr has claimed, in his work The Nature and Destiny of Man, Volume I: Human Nature, that, "Man has always been his most vexing problem" (Niebuhr NDM, 1). Man's selfishness is the root of many of his problems. Essentially, Niebuhr argued that human beings have an inherent selfishness which neither reason, empathy, nor man's inherent benevolence can overcome well enough to create, for any substantial period of time, an idyllic society. In his work Moral Man and Immoral Society, he stated:

Selfishness, according to the above passage seeps