Page 11
Painting by Clark Kelly Price: clarkkelleyprice.com
N O A H ? N O W A Y !
A Movie Review. Of Sorts.
If one interprets the stories told in the Old Testament of the Bible as literal fact, and not merely as fictional morality fables, no tale is more preposterous or strains the credulity of one's faith more so than the story of Noah. It is an accounting of death and destruction on a scale that even by Biblical standards, relates the seemingly sociopathic tantrums of an all-powerful God -- one whose antics are more like those of an out-of-control maniac. No Napoleon, no Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam Hussein could have conceived of a plan more diabolical than what Satan himself might well have imagined as the most consummate form of punishment ever devised. The devastation described in the story of Noah is a narrative that not only speaks of ethnic cleansing, but of global cleansing; a criminally genocidal, undeniably insane act of vengeance that is devoid of all mercy or rationality.
Yet millions believe Noah's pretentious bilgewater to be the gospel truth, both literally and figuratively. Meanwhile many of these same Christian faithful likely question the sanity and cruelty of those who follow world leaders. Ruthless dictators whose aspirations of conquest seem all-the-more paltry by comparison to the wrath of God. What kind of weak-kneed, gullible, look-the-other-way moron would worship such a depraved, psychotic entity, divine or not?
Such criticisms sound like harsh and terribly blasphemous accusations of an Almighty who, under all other conditions and situations, smote only those who stood in the way of the righteous attaining victory over one or another barbarians, philistines, or other, unenlightened savages. When it came to Noah, however, God pulled out all the stops, and didn't pull any punches about it.
Show me someone who seriously contemplates the total nature of the destruction wrought by "The Flood" -- and accepts the event as simply a matter of God's will be done -- and I'll give you a person whose notion of Divine judgment makes pale by comparison, the worst act of human terrorism anyone might imagine. So egregious is the concept of planetary demolition as described in the tale, that nuclear holocaust itself plays a weak second fiddle comparatively speaking. The question is thus raised that doesn't ask if God is dead, but whether He is sane or not.
The recent movie, Noah, starring Russell Crowe, prompted my intentionally scathing attack on both the film and especially the story itself. I understand, however, that since my main objections have yet to be more fully explained, here they are: The Old Testament, to begin, is rife with violent narratives where the killing of women, children, and animals was a relatively common occurrence. Much of it for good cause, I might add. Or at least, given the times, made some kind of sense. One might therefore ask, "So what's the big deal? Isn't it just a matter of degree, whereby the story of Noah is, at its heart, basically the same kind of thing nonetheless?" Among the faithful, this is certainly true.
I suppose one might also ask whether there's a difference between a person who kills once as a result of sudden rage, versus a brutal serial killer. People are dead in either case. By the same token, one might up the ante, so to speak, and beg a question that asks what is the difference between the worst serial killers, and a concentration camp filled with Nazi butchers. I, for one, submit there's a big difference, and one that's not merely a matter of magnitude. I doubt that the most reprehensible of serial murderers, if queried, would express a personal desire (were it within their power) that every man, woman, and child -- animal, plant, even insect -- should all be slaughtered in one fell swoop. Yet that is precisely what allegedly happened in the equally deplorable story of Noah.
I wonder how many Christians consider themselves as animal lovers. Otherwise kind-hearted folk who believe that animals possess a certain innocence of spirit that excuses them from all human concepts of judgment and guilt. One might as well ask how many people love children for the same and numerous other reasons. Children and animals. Millions of children and billions of animals. Trillions or more of plants and insects. All dead by drowning. Or impaled or crushed by waterborne debris.
Have you ever almost drowned? It's not fun. Among the different ways to die, it ranks high among the worst there are -- depending on how prolonged the process of slow suffocation takes. Waterboarding? Human torturers are amateurs compared to God's methods. Millions of children. Billions of animals. All of them gasping for air, their lungs bursting for lack of it. Kittens. Puppies. Children. Babies. Utterly, absolutely innocent, and most of whom never even heard of the Hebrew God whose hand lay pressed against the backs of their heads, forcing their small faces down inside the proverbial bucket usually reserved for drowning too many kittens.
In this case, too many sinners for God's liking. Ignorance didn't just mean bliss; it meant death. The only acceptable conclusion, God somehow decided, was to kill them all. Sinners and saints alike. Unless you made it to the ark in time.
Any so-called animal lover, if for no other reason, ought to reject the story of Noah; it should be dismissed as absurd, ridiculous, both obscene and profane. Likewise, the worshiping of any God who would not only condone but perpetrate such a perverse offense, ought to be discarded as nonsensical, outlandish, and an insult to the rational, logical mind.
Billions of animals. Dogs. Cats. Bears and bear cubs. Elephants, pandas, and chimpanzees. Snow leopards. Chipmonks. Plus a hundred billion reptiles of every size and description. And not one sinner in the bunch. Save for the fish, that is. One might easily deduce that God is a whale or sea turtle, given His unexplained sparing of anything that could swim or breathe under water.
Many people spend their entire lives striving to relieve the suffering of abused children, whether in the form of starvation, illness, or injuries -- both mental and physical -- inflicted by abusive adults. Many of these same people then go to church on any given Sunday, drop to their knees, and supplicate themselves unto a God they believe committed infanticide on a scale that would have shocked -- and thrilled -- ol' Beelzebub himself.
Millions of infants. Millions of babies whose only sin was gasping for their next breath. Maybe there were only thousands of them. What's a few, more or less, give or take? It's said that once you kill the first thousand, the next batch comes a lot easier.
I'm not scholarly enough to know whether the Biblical account of The Flood addresses the inhabitants of seas and oceans. For fear of repeating myself, billions of fish and millions of whales, porpoises, turtles and octopuses. Did they even notice what was happening elsewhere? Did land animals suffer solely because they had the misfortune of not being aquatic? If so, that fact certainly makes no less sense than the rest of it. One might, however, be tempted to conclude that God possesses a definite bias in favor of fish. Which would then add real credence to the prolific symbol that Christians are so fond of brandishing.
In summation, the Christian Bible contains a great deal of wisdom and lots of great stories. The Good Book, both Old and New, literally brims with heroes and heroism, epic tales of honor, loyalty and faith. Few would question the teachings of Jesus that beseech people to treat one another as brothers and sisters, to show compassion for the less fortunate, and shun a multitude of earthly sins.
The story of Noah, however, contains none of these qualities. It is an exercise in psychopathic narcissism of unimaginable proportions, pure and simple. Of a deranged and demented Being who seemingly thrives on unquestioning, selfless devotion -- and strikes out with inconceivable fury when scorned.
For this and other reasons, my God never commanded Noah to do anything. My God doesn't commit the wholesale murder of millions in order to save a handful of dutiful, shivering zealots. My God cares about, and takes care of the children of the world. My God allows the lamb to lie beside the tiger and neither knows starvation or the terror of brutal death. My God doesn't let bad things happen to good people. My God doesn't let good things happen for bad people. The righteous live long, prosperous lives, while the wicked among us die painful, premature deaths. My God doesn't answer the prayers of some and ignore those of others. My God doesn't spare the lives of some, and allow others to perish. All are equal players who dance upon a cosmic roulette wheel, and whose ultimate rest within one slot or another, is never predetermined.
My God loves me and understands why I do not -- and cannot -- believe in His existence.
Yet millions believe Noah's pretentious bilgewater to be the gospel truth, both literally and figuratively. Meanwhile many of these same Christian faithful likely question the sanity and cruelty of those who follow world leaders. Ruthless dictators whose aspirations of conquest seem all-the-more paltry by comparison to the wrath of God. What kind of weak-kneed, gullible, look-the-other-way moron would worship such a depraved, psychotic entity, divine or not?
Such criticisms sound like harsh and terribly blasphemous accusations of an Almighty who, under all other conditions and situations, smote only those who stood in the way of the righteous attaining victory over one or another barbarians, philistines, or other, unenlightened savages. When it came to Noah, however, God pulled out all the stops, and didn't pull any punches about it.
Show me someone who seriously contemplates the total nature of the destruction wrought by "The Flood" -- and accepts the event as simply a matter of God's will be done -- and I'll give you a person whose notion of Divine judgment makes pale by comparison, the worst act of human terrorism anyone might imagine. So egregious is the concept of planetary demolition as described in the tale, that nuclear holocaust itself plays a weak second fiddle comparatively speaking. The question is thus raised that doesn't ask if God is dead, but whether He is sane or not.
The recent movie, Noah, starring Russell Crowe, prompted my intentionally scathing attack on both the film and especially the story itself. I understand, however, that since my main objections have yet to be more fully explained, here they are: The Old Testament, to begin, is rife with violent narratives where the killing of women, children, and animals was a relatively common occurrence. Much of it for good cause, I might add. Or at least, given the times, made some kind of sense. One might therefore ask, "So what's the big deal? Isn't it just a matter of degree, whereby the story of Noah is, at its heart, basically the same kind of thing nonetheless?" Among the faithful, this is certainly true.
I suppose one might also ask whether there's a difference between a person who kills once as a result of sudden rage, versus a brutal serial killer. People are dead in either case. By the same token, one might up the ante, so to speak, and beg a question that asks what is the difference between the worst serial killers, and a concentration camp filled with Nazi butchers. I, for one, submit there's a big difference, and one that's not merely a matter of magnitude. I doubt that the most reprehensible of serial murderers, if queried, would express a personal desire (were it within their power) that every man, woman, and child -- animal, plant, even insect -- should all be slaughtered in one fell swoop. Yet that is precisely what allegedly happened in the equally deplorable story of Noah.
I wonder how many Christians consider themselves as animal lovers. Otherwise kind-hearted folk who believe that animals possess a certain innocence of spirit that excuses them from all human concepts of judgment and guilt. One might as well ask how many people love children for the same and numerous other reasons. Children and animals. Millions of children and billions of animals. Trillions or more of plants and insects. All dead by drowning. Or impaled or crushed by waterborne debris.
Have you ever almost drowned? It's not fun. Among the different ways to die, it ranks high among the worst there are -- depending on how prolonged the process of slow suffocation takes. Waterboarding? Human torturers are amateurs compared to God's methods. Millions of children. Billions of animals. All of them gasping for air, their lungs bursting for lack of it. Kittens. Puppies. Children. Babies. Utterly, absolutely innocent, and most of whom never even heard of the Hebrew God whose hand lay pressed against the backs of their heads, forcing their small faces down inside the proverbial bucket usually reserved for drowning too many kittens.
In this case, too many sinners for God's liking. Ignorance didn't just mean bliss; it meant death. The only acceptable conclusion, God somehow decided, was to kill them all. Sinners and saints alike. Unless you made it to the ark in time.
Any so-called animal lover, if for no other reason, ought to reject the story of Noah; it should be dismissed as absurd, ridiculous, both obscene and profane. Likewise, the worshiping of any God who would not only condone but perpetrate such a perverse offense, ought to be discarded as nonsensical, outlandish, and an insult to the rational, logical mind.
Billions of animals. Dogs. Cats. Bears and bear cubs. Elephants, pandas, and chimpanzees. Snow leopards. Chipmonks. Plus a hundred billion reptiles of every size and description. And not one sinner in the bunch. Save for the fish, that is. One might easily deduce that God is a whale or sea turtle, given His unexplained sparing of anything that could swim or breathe under water.
Many people spend their entire lives striving to relieve the suffering of abused children, whether in the form of starvation, illness, or injuries -- both mental and physical -- inflicted by abusive adults. Many of these same people then go to church on any given Sunday, drop to their knees, and supplicate themselves unto a God they believe committed infanticide on a scale that would have shocked -- and thrilled -- ol' Beelzebub himself.
Millions of infants. Millions of babies whose only sin was gasping for their next breath. Maybe there were only thousands of them. What's a few, more or less, give or take? It's said that once you kill the first thousand, the next batch comes a lot easier.
I'm not scholarly enough to know whether the Biblical account of The Flood addresses the inhabitants of seas and oceans. For fear of repeating myself, billions of fish and millions of whales, porpoises, turtles and octopuses. Did they even notice what was happening elsewhere? Did land animals suffer solely because they had the misfortune of not being aquatic? If so, that fact certainly makes no less sense than the rest of it. One might, however, be tempted to conclude that God possesses a definite bias in favor of fish. Which would then add real credence to the prolific symbol that Christians are so fond of brandishing.
In summation, the Christian Bible contains a great deal of wisdom and lots of great stories. The Good Book, both Old and New, literally brims with heroes and heroism, epic tales of honor, loyalty and faith. Few would question the teachings of Jesus that beseech people to treat one another as brothers and sisters, to show compassion for the less fortunate, and shun a multitude of earthly sins.
The story of Noah, however, contains none of these qualities. It is an exercise in psychopathic narcissism of unimaginable proportions, pure and simple. Of a deranged and demented Being who seemingly thrives on unquestioning, selfless devotion -- and strikes out with inconceivable fury when scorned.
For this and other reasons, my God never commanded Noah to do anything. My God doesn't commit the wholesale murder of millions in order to save a handful of dutiful, shivering zealots. My God cares about, and takes care of the children of the world. My God allows the lamb to lie beside the tiger and neither knows starvation or the terror of brutal death. My God doesn't let bad things happen to good people. My God doesn't let good things happen for bad people. The righteous live long, prosperous lives, while the wicked among us die painful, premature deaths. My God doesn't answer the prayers of some and ignore those of others. My God doesn't spare the lives of some, and allow others to perish. All are equal players who dance upon a cosmic roulette wheel, and whose ultimate rest within one slot or another, is never predetermined.
My God loves me and understands why I do not -- and cannot -- believe in His existence.
Fig. 2. Credit: dailymail.co.uk
A Rebuttal, Of Sorts
The Case On Behalf Of Judaism and Christianity
Ju-day-oh, Ju-day-ay-ay-oh,
Big light come an' all God's children go home.
Big light come an' all God's children go home.
In more than one of the essays to be found on my website, I spend time lambasting and berating the Almighty for one reason or another. It only seemed fair, therefore, to dedicate at least one small composition in His defense, and make it clear that another side to the story does exist. It also should to be said that neither Jews nor Christians, or those of any other faith, need me as their spokesperson; I make no pretense as to my lack of qualifications in assessing the qualities, or lack of same, with respect to any of the world's great religions. On the contrary, my opinions are strictly my own and meant to be read as editorial commentary and nothing more. As a brief aside, it should be noted that while I often reference God as being male in gender, in this and other essays, I do so strictly in the generic sense of the term. In English, the male gender is used grammatically when the true sex of the individual is either unknown or unimportant.
No discussion of God is possible, nor should one even begin without first mentioning -- and defining -- the concept of miracles. A miracle is henceforth defined as: A marvelous event manifesting the supernatural act of a divine agent.
In regard to Christianity, two key events describe the base and context for first, the Old Testament of the Bible, and secondly the New Testament. The great event of the Old Testament is, of course, the act of Creation itself. After which all else follows. In the New Testament, it is the Resurrection which gives meaning, substance, and credulity to all the rest. These three elements combined -- the existence of miracles, the creation of all there is, and Jesus surviving his own death, form the basis upon which any discussion of Christianity should either start or conclude. If one is to make the case for a Christian God, each of the three subjects in question need to be addressed, and a rationale offered that satisfies all but the most hardened of skeptics. Or atheists.
Miracles are not hard to find in a world (and universe) positively brimming with them. One need only be willing to see with open eyes, an open heart, and especially an open mind. Everywhere we might look, there exist things, places, and events for which no scientific or logical explanation is readily available. In some situations, no cause or reason is even conceivable beyond that of Divine providence. For the record, I should be counted as being among the first to concede the veracity of such an observation.
The only real question is not so much whether or not miracles exist, but to what form of causality are they attributed. Whether most are the result of extraordinary coincidence, the presence of extraterrestrials, or the existence of God and all which that portends. A number of other choices might well be in play, but if they are, it seems likely that none can be explained in terms of any meaningful consensus. So for now, we'll pretend to be content with the three I mentioned. For the purposes of this particular essay, no differentiation is made between the forces of supernatural origin and those that derive from a more religious foundation. If we accept and believe in the one, then the other must also follow. No ghosts or goblins without angels and demons. And no supreme Evil without a supreme Good.
Coincidences? Some, certainly, but certainly not all. Not even close. Some people argue that there are no coincidences -- ever. As always, we should first define the word. A coincidence is typically an event that might have been arranged although it was really accidental; an apparently incongruent relationship associated with two things happening at the same time; concurrent events or situations that occur simultaneously or in connection with another, that are seemingly unrelated, unintentional, or entirely accidental in nature. In other words, stuff happens that, in the absence of any other expedient explanation, is simply dismissed as being coincidental in nature. If you were thinking of someone when the phone rings, and it's them, chances are good that it was only a coincidence. If you were thinking of that same person, the phone rings, and you're told that they've been involved in a bad accident or even killed, chances are also good that your intuition was more than coincidence. But since we usually don't know, one way or the other, it's easier to shrug things off as simply coincidental. Ask anyone you know. These sort of things happen all the time. And it is doubtful that simple happenstance was the reason, each and every time.
Extraterrestrials? Maybe. The rank and file of believers represents a large and growing number of adherents, many of them ordinary people who remain convinced that extraordinary beings are, in one way or another, intervening in human affairs. Such intrusions are manifested by everything from amazingly detailed abduction accounts, to the eyewitness testimonies from credible, often unimpeachable sources. Those who might otherwise shirk any particular religious faith will, for one reason or another, cling to a belief in the existence of aliens from another world -- that E.T.'s have in the past or are presently (or both) involved in any number of strange events for which no other explanation is available -- beyond guesses by scholars, scientists, or theologians whose reasons are no worse or necessarily better than those offered by the most ardent believers in the idea that extraterrestrials live among us.
In some cases, modern-day miracles previously defined as purely religious in nature, have found an audience among UFO enthusiasts. Many people believe that biblical accounts of flying machines, healings, advanced technologies, and catastrophic events such as those described for the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were the result of extraterrestrials playing God. The presence of advanced science in the eyes of technologically primitive societies has often been viewed as an otherwise religious experience. Real faith for a Christian must (and does) rise above the fanciful and wishful thinking of people whose only real hope in life seems to spring from a cynical belief in the hopelessness of humanity. That without the help (or threat) of aliens or supernatural (but not necessarily spiritual) forces, our species is somehow doomed to fail.
Redemption amid the chaos. In a world that buzzes and bangs with all manner of ideas, speculations, and theories about everything under the sun, including stars themselves, religious faith can offer a calm and quiet refuge from the noise and confusion of a troubled planet. Among the world's handful of great religions, meaning those which have persevered during almost the full span of civilized cultures, Christianity is not only unique, but offers a clear choice for those who choose to believe, and those who do not. That choice exists in the form of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, in the belief that he was not only the Son of God, but more to the point, that he rose from the dead and again walked the earth subsequent his crucifixion. These two facts, but especially the Resurrection, exist as the cornerstone (no pun intended) of Christian belief, without which, Christianity itself is no more than just another social club. No other mainstream theology makes a similar, equally audacious claim, nor requires the acceptance of such an assertion as a minimum requirement for membership.
It's important to point out at this juncture that I make no claim as to the possession of expert or special knowledge with respect to Christianity, Christians, or others of faith. I am hardly more than an atheist, but one who dislikes and rejects that particular word, finding it both insulting and an inadequate term with respect to how I view religion -- let alone my specific philosophical approach to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Likewise, I reject the militancy and arrogance of other atheists, as if their disbelief and faith in what isn't, is somehow superior to the disciplined devotion that another holds near and dear.
One needn't be a Buddhist to be one. There's a joke in there somewhere, but I don't want to take the time to find it. Nor do I need to, I don't think. One needn't be Jewish or convert to Judaism in order to live a life in concert with many of the principles and traditions of the Hebrew faith. Want to be a good Hindu? It's not much more complicated than simply deciding you are one, and then duing some of the things that Hindus du. Or not duing what most Hindus don't du. Muslims are a bit more persnickety, with rules that insist you not be a Christian or of any other faith, other than Muslim. Being a good Muslim is more or less a matter of not belonging to the church of anyone else. Christians, however, both Catholic and Protestant, are rather more adamant about what it takes to be a member in good standing. And by that, it's meant to describe one's eligibility for acceptance into Heaven. And the ultimate reward of everlasting life.
The more conservative factions of Christianity are stricter yet, and one's eternal reward is governed by an absolute adherence to a single and specific admonition; namely that one be saved -- a condition accomplished solely by accepting Jesus Christ into one's life as the only means by which entry into Heaven is possible. Further, that Jesus died precisely so that men (and women) might be forgiven their inherent, inborn sins and thus enter the holy Kingdom. No amount of good works, compassion, or other selfless deeds are sufficient -- by themselves -- to earn salvation and eternal life. Worth repeating is the fact that no other major religion makes such a demand of its congregants -- a mandatory condition which is inseparably connected to the Resurrection event mentioned earlier.
It seems to me that such a requirement isn't all that difficult either to understand or fulfill. If one accepts the Resurrection as a serious and factual revelation, the logical conclusion that Jesus is the way -- and the only way -- into Heaven, makes complete and total sense. It all fits together as a very neat set of puzzle pieces that when viewed as a whole, gives even skeptics like me, reason to pause and contemplate the elegant beauty of what it means to adopt a truly faithful life. The appeal is seductive, hypnotic, compelling, and of profound consequence. I like this aspect of devout Christianity because everything is put on the line, up front, and minus all the hesitations, vagaries, and doubts sometimes found among other faiths. Here it is; take it or leave it. But do the latter at your own peril.
Unfortunately, the dire consequences of not being "saved" are severe and off-putting to many. Whatever one's concept of Hell, that is precisely what awaits the unsaved, minus any further discussion. While Christianity is relatively easy to adopt and live by, failure to do so incurs those hefty consequences just spoken of. Similar to the story of Noah, the skies nowadays are not only cloudy, but a light sprinkle can be felt wherever one goes, regardless of where one looks. The modern equivalent of the Ark, it might be asserted, is the acceptance of Jesus as one's personal savior. It's not a bad analogy, and one I've created especially for this particular composition.
As I reflect back on a relatively full life that included a wide variety of experiences, both here in America and abroad, one of the more powerful truisms I discovered along the way has to do with the people, both elegant and eloquent, that I've either met or observed in my travels. Almost to a person, these individuals have been people of faith. Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, Buddhists and others. And more often than not, conservative Christians and Orthodox Jews. Say what one will, believe what one might, I have seen, listened to, met, and known no better souls than those whose lives are governed by the rules and rituals of their chosen faith.
If you'll forgive the odd but strangely accurate comparison, a pregnant woman exudes a certain quality of being that is hard to describe, but very real nonetheless. It's often referred to as a "glow" that emanates both health and happiness. Among the truly religious people it has been my pleasure to meet or know, each of them, in their own way, has appeared to possess some inner calm and equanimity, a confidence and strength different from fanaticism, zealotry, or what we might imagine as a form of brain-washing. Nope, these folks were on to something that changed them in some profound way that I, for one, couldn't hope to explain -- nor should I even try. I'm too much of a wiseacre, a troublemaker who makes a "doubting Thomas" look gullible by comparison.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, I don't confuse intelligent, spiritual people, with equally intelligent, genuinely religious people. I consider myself to be a very spiritual person, meaning that while I think of myself as existing at the bottom of the food-chain, I revel in the grandeur of both the world and the universe. I hold in reverence all things great and small, from dinosaurs to spiders, from peaceful pastures to exploding galaxies. All of it greater than I, and none of it separate from me. But that's me. And what I don't have, is the serenity of spirit that I so admire in other people. Some people. Some Jews and some Christians. They would be the first, I'm sure, to tell me that I'll learn the truth -- some day.
I can bring this essay to a quiet close by honestly declaring that I hope the gentle religionists have it right. No, I really do. Nothing would please me more than to live an everlasting life. Seriously. I even wrote an essay about that, somewhere around here. Unfortunately I'm my own worst enemy, however. I don't have an invitation apparently. In that respect I think they're wrong; I believe there's a loop-hole for people like me. Something in the fine print that even they don't know about. In the meantime, put me down as largely pro-Christian, pro-Jew, and definitely anti-atheist. That ought to score me a point or two. Just in case.
Maybe I should root for the Catholics more. I think they still believe in purgatory, which if true, has got a bench with my name on it, reserved for the next ten-thousand years or so. If I'm lucky.
No discussion of God is possible, nor should one even begin without first mentioning -- and defining -- the concept of miracles. A miracle is henceforth defined as: A marvelous event manifesting the supernatural act of a divine agent.
In regard to Christianity, two key events describe the base and context for first, the Old Testament of the Bible, and secondly the New Testament. The great event of the Old Testament is, of course, the act of Creation itself. After which all else follows. In the New Testament, it is the Resurrection which gives meaning, substance, and credulity to all the rest. These three elements combined -- the existence of miracles, the creation of all there is, and Jesus surviving his own death, form the basis upon which any discussion of Christianity should either start or conclude. If one is to make the case for a Christian God, each of the three subjects in question need to be addressed, and a rationale offered that satisfies all but the most hardened of skeptics. Or atheists.
Miracles are not hard to find in a world (and universe) positively brimming with them. One need only be willing to see with open eyes, an open heart, and especially an open mind. Everywhere we might look, there exist things, places, and events for which no scientific or logical explanation is readily available. In some situations, no cause or reason is even conceivable beyond that of Divine providence. For the record, I should be counted as being among the first to concede the veracity of such an observation.
The only real question is not so much whether or not miracles exist, but to what form of causality are they attributed. Whether most are the result of extraordinary coincidence, the presence of extraterrestrials, or the existence of God and all which that portends. A number of other choices might well be in play, but if they are, it seems likely that none can be explained in terms of any meaningful consensus. So for now, we'll pretend to be content with the three I mentioned. For the purposes of this particular essay, no differentiation is made between the forces of supernatural origin and those that derive from a more religious foundation. If we accept and believe in the one, then the other must also follow. No ghosts or goblins without angels and demons. And no supreme Evil without a supreme Good.
Coincidences? Some, certainly, but certainly not all. Not even close. Some people argue that there are no coincidences -- ever. As always, we should first define the word. A coincidence is typically an event that might have been arranged although it was really accidental; an apparently incongruent relationship associated with two things happening at the same time; concurrent events or situations that occur simultaneously or in connection with another, that are seemingly unrelated, unintentional, or entirely accidental in nature. In other words, stuff happens that, in the absence of any other expedient explanation, is simply dismissed as being coincidental in nature. If you were thinking of someone when the phone rings, and it's them, chances are good that it was only a coincidence. If you were thinking of that same person, the phone rings, and you're told that they've been involved in a bad accident or even killed, chances are also good that your intuition was more than coincidence. But since we usually don't know, one way or the other, it's easier to shrug things off as simply coincidental. Ask anyone you know. These sort of things happen all the time. And it is doubtful that simple happenstance was the reason, each and every time.
Extraterrestrials? Maybe. The rank and file of believers represents a large and growing number of adherents, many of them ordinary people who remain convinced that extraordinary beings are, in one way or another, intervening in human affairs. Such intrusions are manifested by everything from amazingly detailed abduction accounts, to the eyewitness testimonies from credible, often unimpeachable sources. Those who might otherwise shirk any particular religious faith will, for one reason or another, cling to a belief in the existence of aliens from another world -- that E.T.'s have in the past or are presently (or both) involved in any number of strange events for which no other explanation is available -- beyond guesses by scholars, scientists, or theologians whose reasons are no worse or necessarily better than those offered by the most ardent believers in the idea that extraterrestrials live among us.
In some cases, modern-day miracles previously defined as purely religious in nature, have found an audience among UFO enthusiasts. Many people believe that biblical accounts of flying machines, healings, advanced technologies, and catastrophic events such as those described for the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were the result of extraterrestrials playing God. The presence of advanced science in the eyes of technologically primitive societies has often been viewed as an otherwise religious experience. Real faith for a Christian must (and does) rise above the fanciful and wishful thinking of people whose only real hope in life seems to spring from a cynical belief in the hopelessness of humanity. That without the help (or threat) of aliens or supernatural (but not necessarily spiritual) forces, our species is somehow doomed to fail.
Redemption amid the chaos. In a world that buzzes and bangs with all manner of ideas, speculations, and theories about everything under the sun, including stars themselves, religious faith can offer a calm and quiet refuge from the noise and confusion of a troubled planet. Among the world's handful of great religions, meaning those which have persevered during almost the full span of civilized cultures, Christianity is not only unique, but offers a clear choice for those who choose to believe, and those who do not. That choice exists in the form of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, in the belief that he was not only the Son of God, but more to the point, that he rose from the dead and again walked the earth subsequent his crucifixion. These two facts, but especially the Resurrection, exist as the cornerstone (no pun intended) of Christian belief, without which, Christianity itself is no more than just another social club. No other mainstream theology makes a similar, equally audacious claim, nor requires the acceptance of such an assertion as a minimum requirement for membership.
It's important to point out at this juncture that I make no claim as to the possession of expert or special knowledge with respect to Christianity, Christians, or others of faith. I am hardly more than an atheist, but one who dislikes and rejects that particular word, finding it both insulting and an inadequate term with respect to how I view religion -- let alone my specific philosophical approach to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Likewise, I reject the militancy and arrogance of other atheists, as if their disbelief and faith in what isn't, is somehow superior to the disciplined devotion that another holds near and dear.
One needn't be a Buddhist to be one. There's a joke in there somewhere, but I don't want to take the time to find it. Nor do I need to, I don't think. One needn't be Jewish or convert to Judaism in order to live a life in concert with many of the principles and traditions of the Hebrew faith. Want to be a good Hindu? It's not much more complicated than simply deciding you are one, and then duing some of the things that Hindus du. Or not duing what most Hindus don't du. Muslims are a bit more persnickety, with rules that insist you not be a Christian or of any other faith, other than Muslim. Being a good Muslim is more or less a matter of not belonging to the church of anyone else. Christians, however, both Catholic and Protestant, are rather more adamant about what it takes to be a member in good standing. And by that, it's meant to describe one's eligibility for acceptance into Heaven. And the ultimate reward of everlasting life.
The more conservative factions of Christianity are stricter yet, and one's eternal reward is governed by an absolute adherence to a single and specific admonition; namely that one be saved -- a condition accomplished solely by accepting Jesus Christ into one's life as the only means by which entry into Heaven is possible. Further, that Jesus died precisely so that men (and women) might be forgiven their inherent, inborn sins and thus enter the holy Kingdom. No amount of good works, compassion, or other selfless deeds are sufficient -- by themselves -- to earn salvation and eternal life. Worth repeating is the fact that no other major religion makes such a demand of its congregants -- a mandatory condition which is inseparably connected to the Resurrection event mentioned earlier.
It seems to me that such a requirement isn't all that difficult either to understand or fulfill. If one accepts the Resurrection as a serious and factual revelation, the logical conclusion that Jesus is the way -- and the only way -- into Heaven, makes complete and total sense. It all fits together as a very neat set of puzzle pieces that when viewed as a whole, gives even skeptics like me, reason to pause and contemplate the elegant beauty of what it means to adopt a truly faithful life. The appeal is seductive, hypnotic, compelling, and of profound consequence. I like this aspect of devout Christianity because everything is put on the line, up front, and minus all the hesitations, vagaries, and doubts sometimes found among other faiths. Here it is; take it or leave it. But do the latter at your own peril.
Unfortunately, the dire consequences of not being "saved" are severe and off-putting to many. Whatever one's concept of Hell, that is precisely what awaits the unsaved, minus any further discussion. While Christianity is relatively easy to adopt and live by, failure to do so incurs those hefty consequences just spoken of. Similar to the story of Noah, the skies nowadays are not only cloudy, but a light sprinkle can be felt wherever one goes, regardless of where one looks. The modern equivalent of the Ark, it might be asserted, is the acceptance of Jesus as one's personal savior. It's not a bad analogy, and one I've created especially for this particular composition.
As I reflect back on a relatively full life that included a wide variety of experiences, both here in America and abroad, one of the more powerful truisms I discovered along the way has to do with the people, both elegant and eloquent, that I've either met or observed in my travels. Almost to a person, these individuals have been people of faith. Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, Buddhists and others. And more often than not, conservative Christians and Orthodox Jews. Say what one will, believe what one might, I have seen, listened to, met, and known no better souls than those whose lives are governed by the rules and rituals of their chosen faith.
If you'll forgive the odd but strangely accurate comparison, a pregnant woman exudes a certain quality of being that is hard to describe, but very real nonetheless. It's often referred to as a "glow" that emanates both health and happiness. Among the truly religious people it has been my pleasure to meet or know, each of them, in their own way, has appeared to possess some inner calm and equanimity, a confidence and strength different from fanaticism, zealotry, or what we might imagine as a form of brain-washing. Nope, these folks were on to something that changed them in some profound way that I, for one, couldn't hope to explain -- nor should I even try. I'm too much of a wiseacre, a troublemaker who makes a "doubting Thomas" look gullible by comparison.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, I don't confuse intelligent, spiritual people, with equally intelligent, genuinely religious people. I consider myself to be a very spiritual person, meaning that while I think of myself as existing at the bottom of the food-chain, I revel in the grandeur of both the world and the universe. I hold in reverence all things great and small, from dinosaurs to spiders, from peaceful pastures to exploding galaxies. All of it greater than I, and none of it separate from me. But that's me. And what I don't have, is the serenity of spirit that I so admire in other people. Some people. Some Jews and some Christians. They would be the first, I'm sure, to tell me that I'll learn the truth -- some day.
I can bring this essay to a quiet close by honestly declaring that I hope the gentle religionists have it right. No, I really do. Nothing would please me more than to live an everlasting life. Seriously. I even wrote an essay about that, somewhere around here. Unfortunately I'm my own worst enemy, however. I don't have an invitation apparently. In that respect I think they're wrong; I believe there's a loop-hole for people like me. Something in the fine print that even they don't know about. In the meantime, put me down as largely pro-Christian, pro-Jew, and definitely anti-atheist. That ought to score me a point or two. Just in case.
Maybe I should root for the Catholics more. I think they still believe in purgatory, which if true, has got a bench with my name on it, reserved for the next ten-thousand years or so. If I'm lucky.
Fig. 3. The False Mirror by Rene Magritte
D R E A M S
The Nighttime Reveries of Slumber
A lot has been written about dreams. The purpose of this essay is to touch upon some aspects of the oneiric world that deal less with interpretation and more with the historical, if not prehistorical nature of the subject. Scientists likely know more about what dreams mean, than what they are. We all know that dreaming is not unique to human beings as any dog or cat owner will readily testify. So other than neurons and synapses firing inside animal and human brains on the so-called subconscious level -- in much the same way as when fully conscious -- what are these sub-realities called dreams?
One can't help but wonder how prehistoric peoples interpreted their dreams. Even earlier, how proto-humans dealt with theirs. How do modern gorillas, chimpanzees and other primates respond to the dreams they surely experience? How far down the food-chain of creatures -- and their corresponding brain structures -- do we descend until the ability to dream ceases? In all probability, there are some lower groups of animals which represent the final boundary between those who dream and those who do not. Even this suggestion is fraught with degrees of subtlety that beg a definition of the term itself. Among those animals for whom the meaning of sleep itself comes into question -- namely whales, porpoises, and other aquatic aristocrats such as octopuses, how different or similar are their dreams compared to other ocean dwellers -- or other land inhabitants?
Certainly no question exists that homo sapiens experience dreams of such a nature that they are largely indistinguishable from a normal state of consciousness. It is this quality that may well separate humans from all other animals on Earth as relates to dreams. While many people have changed the way they live because of one or more powerful dreams that affected them in an extraordinary manner, it is doubtful that dogs and cats ponder the significance of their deeper reveries. Perhaps thirst or inordinate hunger might be felt upon awakening, the result of a dream associated with food or water. We don't really know the answer to these questions, especially as they relate to lower animals. Or how significant or unimportant dreams might be to the creatures who experience them.
Do dreams possess any added survival value? Does nature select for animals whose ability to survive is somehow enhanced because they dream? Perhaps dreams allow for deeper sleep periods with more energy and alertness once awake. This is certainly the case for humans. In addition, so-called "Rem" sleep (rapid-eye-movement) is known to play a vital role in both animals and humans.
I am extremely interested in the role that dreams have played with particular respect to human development. From our prehistoric roots to the present. And while we might speculate further as to the significance of dreams in the lives of animals, such a pursuit is almost purely academic in nature. Whereas in the case of human evolution, the relevance of dreams as a cultural influence, and their impact upon societal structures in general, seem specifically important in how civilizations function, both internally and externally. Given that religion has historically (and prehistorically) existed as a major factor in human affairs -- often the single, most important component within a society i.e. ancient Egypt, Catholicism -- the relationship between dreams and religion cannot be underestimated.
One can't help but wonder how dreams were interpreted by early Man. Or early Woman. A hunter whose friend was killed the previous day, or even years earlier, suddenly reappears, fully animated, in some nether world place accessible only during sleep. How long was it before people realized that their dreams were private, and not something in which others shared? The speculations are endless as to what ramifications were wrought by both the best of dreams -- and the worst.
I picture a Neanderthal or some other within whose dream they were attacked by a known member of their tribe. And once awake, retaliated with lethal consequences. How often did this and similar incidents occur before people wised-up to the idea that dreams were completely separate from the "real" world? It is known that several branches of proto-humans went extinct and that homo sapiens themselves are thought to have come precariously close to the same fate. We don't know what role dreams may have played in the scheme-of-things, but unless groups of early hominids learned to incorporate dreams into everyday life, they may have been doomed via their own nightmares.
As an interesting aside, this scenario is eerily akin to the plots of both Shakespeare's The Tempest and the Hollywood film, Forbidden Planet. In each case, illusions and dreams lay at the very heart of the stories and the tragedies involved. Because primates, including gorillas and chimpanzees appear to dismiss their dreams as being of little consequence, not unlike dogs and cats, the inestimable effect of oneiric "delusions" seems to be an exclusively human phenomenon. As such, there can be no doubt that at some point in our evolutionary development, dreams took on a benign relevance that permitted the human species to survive "in spite" of dreams. Regardless of the persistent denials and contradictions found amid two distinctly different realities.
Similarly, an argument might also be made that dreams led to the extinction of one or more pre-human species which may have otherwise thrived and continued to evolve. Evolution would certainly have favored those groups for whom dreams posed few or no problems. It's an interesting concept to ponder. I've read where some scientists believe that not only do we possess a genetic predisposition to follow leaders, but also to embrace mysticism. That would answer a lot of questions we might ask about why people behave in the ways they do. It would go far in explaining why we so desperately seek answers to the meaning of life, and so often find those answers in the form of a multitude of religious faiths, or beliefs in the existence of other supernatural forces.
If we imagine some early form of ourselves looking up at a nighttime sky and making the mental leap that a connection existed between what was experienced during sleep, and the visual marvels seen among the heavens, then it's not difficult to see how belief in a real Heaven wasn't far behind. Among those peoples who shared a genetic propensity to distinguish between dreams and a waking state, the chances of their survival was greater than for those who lacked such a tendency. Translated over a period of eons, is it any wonder that humans possess such an intense proclivity for rituals and mysticism in all their myriad forms?
Fast forward to the modern-day science of computing. Work progresses with respect not only to dream analysis, but to transcribing those dreams into tangible electronic signals which can be recorded and viewed as visual movies of a sort. Still in its infancy, the ability to observe -- to eavesdrop -- on dreams would create an entirely new branch of science. Not only would psychoanalysis itself be forever changed, but certain patterns, both similar and dissimilar, are sure to reveal themselves with respect to sociopathic, even criminal "identifiers". In terms of predictable tendencies, dream visualizations may be the ultimate lie-detector test; they would betray our innermost desires and fears, and completely redefine our present notions of personal liberty and freedom.
Dream lucidity, the conscious recognition within a sleep state that we are in fact, dreaming, is already something that can be taught and learned with practice. Imagine what a new and important role would be the ability to not only experience more lucid dreams, but how we could then alter them in ways both for good and for bad. It would mean that dreams might never be trusted to reveal authentic truths, but only the personality traits and the inherent levels of knowledge a person possesses.
In terms of mental illness, repressed memories and the like, how significant might be the ability to make a visual record of the activities of the so-called subconscious mind? As with all such recordings, the imagery itself is sure to be highly surrealistic in nature. As an artist, I've taught myself to be especially attentive to details within the context of my own lucid dreams. While few in number, such dreams have shown me how little visual information is actually contained in any -- if not all -- our dreams. Each is more like an abstract painting, often with color, where only certain objects or people are recognizable. All else within the frame or field-of-view of our dream is fuzzy at best, and little more than shapeless blobs at worst.
Science is always a two-way street, so to speak. What can come out, can also go in. I we can output visual images from a brain, then we should, in theory, be able to input them. Blindness will no doubt be a thing of the past, and sooner than we might imagine. In addition, the very technology that is used to restore sight to the blind, would also possess the inherent power to create realistic, but wholly illusory experiences within anyone's brain -- regardless of whether that person was asleep or awake. Obviously a close relationship exists between synthetic dreams and so-called virtual realities.
So many of the technologies set to come online in the near future, let alone the more distant variety, will change everything. We just don't realize it yet. Well, some of us do. Not unrelated to this discussion of dreams and the recordable visualizations of same is the topic of memories in general. The greatest and most remarkable advancements in the fields of brain research will be the recording and ultimate duplication of every synaptic connection within individual brains. A backup of sorts, which can read the brain as a "map" of networked, interlaced, neural roadways -- each of which represents a piece of a thought or picture -- and then transcribe all of it to a storage device of one form or another. And as mentioned earlier, what comes out can go back in.
Instead of brain transplants where we might replace a damaged brain with its perfect-condition, mirror duplicate, it will likely be far easier to transfer the total of someone's stored information into an "empty" brain already attached to a body. A different body. Which is a whole other topic for discussion. But one which I've described in detail in one of my other essays. When I find it, I'll mention it here.
One of the more interesting aspects I've discovered while writing many of these essays is how often they start out in one direction and then, almost with a mind of their own, move into other areas I hadn't previously considered. The process has demonstrated to me how so many, if not all of these different ideas and examinations of seemingly disparate topics, invariably, inevitably want to link up and form previously unexpected, unsuspected connections.
One can't help but wonder how prehistoric peoples interpreted their dreams. Even earlier, how proto-humans dealt with theirs. How do modern gorillas, chimpanzees and other primates respond to the dreams they surely experience? How far down the food-chain of creatures -- and their corresponding brain structures -- do we descend until the ability to dream ceases? In all probability, there are some lower groups of animals which represent the final boundary between those who dream and those who do not. Even this suggestion is fraught with degrees of subtlety that beg a definition of the term itself. Among those animals for whom the meaning of sleep itself comes into question -- namely whales, porpoises, and other aquatic aristocrats such as octopuses, how different or similar are their dreams compared to other ocean dwellers -- or other land inhabitants?
Certainly no question exists that homo sapiens experience dreams of such a nature that they are largely indistinguishable from a normal state of consciousness. It is this quality that may well separate humans from all other animals on Earth as relates to dreams. While many people have changed the way they live because of one or more powerful dreams that affected them in an extraordinary manner, it is doubtful that dogs and cats ponder the significance of their deeper reveries. Perhaps thirst or inordinate hunger might be felt upon awakening, the result of a dream associated with food or water. We don't really know the answer to these questions, especially as they relate to lower animals. Or how significant or unimportant dreams might be to the creatures who experience them.
Do dreams possess any added survival value? Does nature select for animals whose ability to survive is somehow enhanced because they dream? Perhaps dreams allow for deeper sleep periods with more energy and alertness once awake. This is certainly the case for humans. In addition, so-called "Rem" sleep (rapid-eye-movement) is known to play a vital role in both animals and humans.
I am extremely interested in the role that dreams have played with particular respect to human development. From our prehistoric roots to the present. And while we might speculate further as to the significance of dreams in the lives of animals, such a pursuit is almost purely academic in nature. Whereas in the case of human evolution, the relevance of dreams as a cultural influence, and their impact upon societal structures in general, seem specifically important in how civilizations function, both internally and externally. Given that religion has historically (and prehistorically) existed as a major factor in human affairs -- often the single, most important component within a society i.e. ancient Egypt, Catholicism -- the relationship between dreams and religion cannot be underestimated.
One can't help but wonder how dreams were interpreted by early Man. Or early Woman. A hunter whose friend was killed the previous day, or even years earlier, suddenly reappears, fully animated, in some nether world place accessible only during sleep. How long was it before people realized that their dreams were private, and not something in which others shared? The speculations are endless as to what ramifications were wrought by both the best of dreams -- and the worst.
I picture a Neanderthal or some other within whose dream they were attacked by a known member of their tribe. And once awake, retaliated with lethal consequences. How often did this and similar incidents occur before people wised-up to the idea that dreams were completely separate from the "real" world? It is known that several branches of proto-humans went extinct and that homo sapiens themselves are thought to have come precariously close to the same fate. We don't know what role dreams may have played in the scheme-of-things, but unless groups of early hominids learned to incorporate dreams into everyday life, they may have been doomed via their own nightmares.
As an interesting aside, this scenario is eerily akin to the plots of both Shakespeare's The Tempest and the Hollywood film, Forbidden Planet. In each case, illusions and dreams lay at the very heart of the stories and the tragedies involved. Because primates, including gorillas and chimpanzees appear to dismiss their dreams as being of little consequence, not unlike dogs and cats, the inestimable effect of oneiric "delusions" seems to be an exclusively human phenomenon. As such, there can be no doubt that at some point in our evolutionary development, dreams took on a benign relevance that permitted the human species to survive "in spite" of dreams. Regardless of the persistent denials and contradictions found amid two distinctly different realities.
Similarly, an argument might also be made that dreams led to the extinction of one or more pre-human species which may have otherwise thrived and continued to evolve. Evolution would certainly have favored those groups for whom dreams posed few or no problems. It's an interesting concept to ponder. I've read where some scientists believe that not only do we possess a genetic predisposition to follow leaders, but also to embrace mysticism. That would answer a lot of questions we might ask about why people behave in the ways they do. It would go far in explaining why we so desperately seek answers to the meaning of life, and so often find those answers in the form of a multitude of religious faiths, or beliefs in the existence of other supernatural forces.
If we imagine some early form of ourselves looking up at a nighttime sky and making the mental leap that a connection existed between what was experienced during sleep, and the visual marvels seen among the heavens, then it's not difficult to see how belief in a real Heaven wasn't far behind. Among those peoples who shared a genetic propensity to distinguish between dreams and a waking state, the chances of their survival was greater than for those who lacked such a tendency. Translated over a period of eons, is it any wonder that humans possess such an intense proclivity for rituals and mysticism in all their myriad forms?
Fast forward to the modern-day science of computing. Work progresses with respect not only to dream analysis, but to transcribing those dreams into tangible electronic signals which can be recorded and viewed as visual movies of a sort. Still in its infancy, the ability to observe -- to eavesdrop -- on dreams would create an entirely new branch of science. Not only would psychoanalysis itself be forever changed, but certain patterns, both similar and dissimilar, are sure to reveal themselves with respect to sociopathic, even criminal "identifiers". In terms of predictable tendencies, dream visualizations may be the ultimate lie-detector test; they would betray our innermost desires and fears, and completely redefine our present notions of personal liberty and freedom.
Dream lucidity, the conscious recognition within a sleep state that we are in fact, dreaming, is already something that can be taught and learned with practice. Imagine what a new and important role would be the ability to not only experience more lucid dreams, but how we could then alter them in ways both for good and for bad. It would mean that dreams might never be trusted to reveal authentic truths, but only the personality traits and the inherent levels of knowledge a person possesses.
In terms of mental illness, repressed memories and the like, how significant might be the ability to make a visual record of the activities of the so-called subconscious mind? As with all such recordings, the imagery itself is sure to be highly surrealistic in nature. As an artist, I've taught myself to be especially attentive to details within the context of my own lucid dreams. While few in number, such dreams have shown me how little visual information is actually contained in any -- if not all -- our dreams. Each is more like an abstract painting, often with color, where only certain objects or people are recognizable. All else within the frame or field-of-view of our dream is fuzzy at best, and little more than shapeless blobs at worst.
Science is always a two-way street, so to speak. What can come out, can also go in. I we can output visual images from a brain, then we should, in theory, be able to input them. Blindness will no doubt be a thing of the past, and sooner than we might imagine. In addition, the very technology that is used to restore sight to the blind, would also possess the inherent power to create realistic, but wholly illusory experiences within anyone's brain -- regardless of whether that person was asleep or awake. Obviously a close relationship exists between synthetic dreams and so-called virtual realities.
So many of the technologies set to come online in the near future, let alone the more distant variety, will change everything. We just don't realize it yet. Well, some of us do. Not unrelated to this discussion of dreams and the recordable visualizations of same is the topic of memories in general. The greatest and most remarkable advancements in the fields of brain research will be the recording and ultimate duplication of every synaptic connection within individual brains. A backup of sorts, which can read the brain as a "map" of networked, interlaced, neural roadways -- each of which represents a piece of a thought or picture -- and then transcribe all of it to a storage device of one form or another. And as mentioned earlier, what comes out can go back in.
Instead of brain transplants where we might replace a damaged brain with its perfect-condition, mirror duplicate, it will likely be far easier to transfer the total of someone's stored information into an "empty" brain already attached to a body. A different body. Which is a whole other topic for discussion. But one which I've described in detail in one of my other essays. When I find it, I'll mention it here.
One of the more interesting aspects I've discovered while writing many of these essays is how often they start out in one direction and then, almost with a mind of their own, move into other areas I hadn't previously considered. The process has demonstrated to me how so many, if not all of these different ideas and examinations of seemingly disparate topics, invariably, inevitably want to link up and form previously unexpected, unsuspected connections.
Excerpted here from William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Scene 2, is the following quote:
". . . it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O', be some other name!
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
". . . it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O', be some other name!
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
In the sense that we attribute different names to everything, ignoring how physical differences are superficial, and intrinsic qualities are virtually identical, Shakespeare may have been as much a Buddhist as a playwright. Residing within a rose is the energy of a hydrogen bomb while likewise contained in every nuclear warhead is a subatomic packet of seeds from which a thousand forests and a million gardens might be grown. An entire new Earth, or the destruction of an old one.
Perhaps all of us, and a million-billion galaxies, are little more than the single dream of a sleeping God.
Awaken Almighty!
Hear the calls of those who hail Thee.
Rise from Your restless slumber,
O', Creator of all that is.
We beseech Thee for answers,
That Thou might know our plea.
So stir from Your sleep O', God,
And save us from our Fall.
Arouse and be among us, O', Lord.
Or forever set us free.
Hear the calls of those who hail Thee.
Rise from Your restless slumber,
O', Creator of all that is.
We beseech Thee for answers,
That Thou might know our plea.
So stir from Your sleep O', God,
And save us from our Fall.
Arouse and be among us, O', Lord.
Or forever set us free.
* * * *
You're currently on page IMA11
listed under IMAGINOMICON.
