Recently, I've been reading Angles and Demons and the sequel, The Da Vinci code. The conspiracy theory basis seems somewhat weak, so I don't believe it, but some of the other things in it seem interesting. Specifically, the religious symbology discussed in it.
See, the main character is a Harvard symbologist (Yes, I know that's not a word) so much of the book is about different symbols in our everyday lives. It got me thinking about how symbols affect our lives.
It's odd, especially, how symbols change. The Nazi symbol once had a christian meaning, and the cross, which, to christians, is thought to be a symbol of love, was once a form of Roman torture and would be associated with execution in Jesus's time.
Particularly I feel like in the U.S., we are too sensitive to our national symbols. You aren't allowed to hunt eagles, which are just another bird, and every week at school I have to pledge my allegiance to an inanimate piece of cloth decorated with stars and strips.
To be honest, I don't think we should be so serious about symbols. All in all, they're just lines on paper.
Sorry that this isn't my best post, but right after I posted the first part, I got sick and then had a lot of other things going on.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Relgious symbols, part 1
Sorry about the last post.
Anyways, I have a good post now to validate the last one.
Recently, I've been reading Angles and Demons and the sequel, The Da Vinci code. The conspiracy theory basis seems somewhat weak, so I don't believe it, but some of the other things in it seem interesting. Specifically, the religious symbology discussed in it.
See, the main character is a Harvard symbologist (Yes, I that's not a word) so much of the book is about different symbols in our everyday lives and
Sorry, I have to go. I guess this will have to be in 2 parts. The rest will be in another post tomorrow.
Anyways, I have a good post now to validate the last one.
Recently, I've been reading Angles and Demons and the sequel, The Da Vinci code. The conspiracy theory basis seems somewhat weak, so I don't believe it, but some of the other things in it seem interesting. Specifically, the religious symbology discussed in it.
See, the main character is a Harvard symbologist (Yes, I that's not a word) so much of the book is about different symbols in our everyday lives and
Sorry, I have to go. I guess this will have to be in 2 parts. The rest will be in another post tomorrow.
superstitions
I am superstitous. I believe number 13 is bad luck, so I'm not posting much for post 113.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Selective memory
A couple days ago my parents told me I did certain things when I was eight or so that were really embarrassing. I found this weird because I don't think I would forgot something as bad as that. My moms explanation was "We all remember selectively".
I think that is really true, and kind of scary. We all forget things we did wrong that we don't want to remember. I wonder what else I don't remember.
If you look at it at not a personal but a societal scale, it's true too. People tend to talk less about wars they consider unjust, like the war in vietnam or Iraq, than wars that are considered just, like World War 2 or the union side of the Civil War (Although arguably, no war is just). And when you look at it from societies from a religious stand point, things get really interesting.
Take ancient Egypt for example, when I was in kindergarten in sunday school I learned that Egypt, it's many idols, and it's evil slavery were all unholy and terrible. However, in sixth grade (At a religious school) Egypt was referred too a great, industrious civilization. Each side seems to have forgotten about the other. Or Rome, for another example. I know priests who refuse to acknowledge Rome as a civilization because of Pontious Piolot, yet every time they vote they are entering into a Republic-style government that was partially developed by Rome. And those who praise Rome's government (Before it got all corrupt) forget that that government is the one that ordered Jesus executed.
In my opinion, selective memory works best in positive light, and although it is slightly deceiving, it is necessary to having a functioning history book. If we take all the crimes of even the greatest civilizations, they look terrible. Forgetting the crimes of individuals in thinking of a society is the best way to remember, in my opinion. Of course, turning someone into a hero (By putting them on the $20 bill for example) who did terrible things shouldn't be done.
Sorry if this post was a bit off, I am running out of ideas.
I think that is really true, and kind of scary. We all forget things we did wrong that we don't want to remember. I wonder what else I don't remember.
If you look at it at not a personal but a societal scale, it's true too. People tend to talk less about wars they consider unjust, like the war in vietnam or Iraq, than wars that are considered just, like World War 2 or the union side of the Civil War (Although arguably, no war is just). And when you look at it from societies from a religious stand point, things get really interesting.
Take ancient Egypt for example, when I was in kindergarten in sunday school I learned that Egypt, it's many idols, and it's evil slavery were all unholy and terrible. However, in sixth grade (At a religious school) Egypt was referred too a great, industrious civilization. Each side seems to have forgotten about the other. Or Rome, for another example. I know priests who refuse to acknowledge Rome as a civilization because of Pontious Piolot, yet every time they vote they are entering into a Republic-style government that was partially developed by Rome. And those who praise Rome's government (Before it got all corrupt) forget that that government is the one that ordered Jesus executed.
In my opinion, selective memory works best in positive light, and although it is slightly deceiving, it is necessary to having a functioning history book. If we take all the crimes of even the greatest civilizations, they look terrible. Forgetting the crimes of individuals in thinking of a society is the best way to remember, in my opinion. Of course, turning someone into a hero (By putting them on the $20 bill for example) who did terrible things shouldn't be done.
Sorry if this post was a bit off, I am running out of ideas.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
No Room for Grey
For school I have to make a spoken word poem. I wrote this one and some people said I should put it on my blog. Hope you like it.
No Room for Grey
We are all raised
To believe there is:
Good and bad,
Law and Chaos,
Black and White.
Bright, shining heroes,
Bathed in sunlight.
Evil, haunted villains
Under a heartless moon.
All out problems will end
When he is in the grave.
It’s not just fiction.
History book have their favorites,
And their hated.
No room for grey
In the human psyche.
The death penalty lives as
long as we believe this illusion.
But what if we’re in the equation?
Not like we’ve ever killed,
Or saved a life,
Or started a war,
Or stopped a killer.
We are told
In the library,
In the theater,
In the classroom,
In our minds,
That there is good and bad,
Law and Chaos,
Black and White.
But what if we’re in the equation.
History books have their favorites.
Are you one.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Science vs religion
I know, I haven't been posting in a while. My excuse is homework, coupled with the fact I haven't had access to a computer where I knew how to use spell check (Which, if you consider the spelling errors I have with spell check, would make a post practically impossible to read) over christmas vacation.
At school, in history class, I've been learning about the John Scopes case, in which a science teacher named John Scopes was tried for teaching the theory of evolution. The simple case of whether or not he had broken a small, local law spiraled into a huge debate over the age-old question of science versus religion. And the defense, by the end, resorted to more or less trying to disprove much of the old testament. Given that the defense lawyer was a practicing christian.
I believe in evolution, but this kind of questioned my faith.
This doubt was deepened when, in science, we learned started our unit on the universe, which, if you believe it (Like I do) pretty much discounts the whole creation story. But the thing that disturbed me most of all was the fact that, apparently, the earth was going to be burnt to a crisp slowly and painfully. Why would god put us on a planet that was doomed from the start?
The universe unit also exposed how small earth is compared to the whole world. I have never heard of anything in the bible saying we were the biggest thing in the universe, but it is still pretty demeaning.
To be honest , lately I've been doubting religion in general. It seems as though the word of god is somehow fighting things that can easily be proven true. And, although in some cases religion and science can agree with or even back up each other, they clash so much that it seems hard to hold onto christianity.
But the thing is, it only really disagrees with the old testament, which is also the part which has God go out killing the Hebrews' enemies (A very un-Godlike thing to do) and says the homosexuality is a sin. I can't find a single passage in the new testament where science would disagree with it (Except possibly Revelations, which is most likely in code anyways). And that is where true ideals of Christianity come out.
I'm not saying the old testament is a lie. Jesus does agree with most of it, doesn't he? But in the fine details arguments spring up.
But, whether or not he created the earth in seven days, god is out there. Why else would people who are resuscitated describe an after life? If matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, who made all this? Why is there life on the earth in the first place? These are the true questions that prove fatih.
At school, in history class, I've been learning about the John Scopes case, in which a science teacher named John Scopes was tried for teaching the theory of evolution. The simple case of whether or not he had broken a small, local law spiraled into a huge debate over the age-old question of science versus religion. And the defense, by the end, resorted to more or less trying to disprove much of the old testament. Given that the defense lawyer was a practicing christian.
I believe in evolution, but this kind of questioned my faith.
This doubt was deepened when, in science, we learned started our unit on the universe, which, if you believe it (Like I do) pretty much discounts the whole creation story. But the thing that disturbed me most of all was the fact that, apparently, the earth was going to be burnt to a crisp slowly and painfully. Why would god put us on a planet that was doomed from the start?
The universe unit also exposed how small earth is compared to the whole world. I have never heard of anything in the bible saying we were the biggest thing in the universe, but it is still pretty demeaning.
To be honest , lately I've been doubting religion in general. It seems as though the word of god is somehow fighting things that can easily be proven true. And, although in some cases religion and science can agree with or even back up each other, they clash so much that it seems hard to hold onto christianity.
But the thing is, it only really disagrees with the old testament, which is also the part which has God go out killing the Hebrews' enemies (A very un-Godlike thing to do) and says the homosexuality is a sin. I can't find a single passage in the new testament where science would disagree with it (Except possibly Revelations, which is most likely in code anyways). And that is where true ideals of Christianity come out.
I'm not saying the old testament is a lie. Jesus does agree with most of it, doesn't he? But in the fine details arguments spring up.
But, whether or not he created the earth in seven days, god is out there. Why else would people who are resuscitated describe an after life? If matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, who made all this? Why is there life on the earth in the first place? These are the true questions that prove fatih.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Judas
Just as a note up-front, yes I know in my previous post I used greed twice and left out wrath. I'll fix it soon.
As for the content, I've been reading about some film-maker, who says that in all his films, he tries to keep out any antagonist, because he believes there is no one person who is completely responsible for a major conflict and his or her death is the sole solution to it. I know this is an opinion I have talked about before, but when I read that opinion, I started wondering about if other stories follow that principle. So far, none the literature I've read in school has proven to have a realistic antagonist, nor have many of the books and movies I read or watch for pleasure. The I thought about it in terms of the bible.
If you asked most christians who the antagonist of the bible was, the knee-jerk reaction is to respond satan. But since I don't believe in satan in the first place, and he isn't really an antagonist that can be over-come (As long as it holds true that no humans, be Jesus sides, are sinless). So, as far as the Christ story goes, most people consider Judas the big-bad guy. And since I can't think of anyone else like that, let's go with him.
In case you're not familiar with the story of Judas (Or are victim to the rumors about him, such as he used the first ever gun to kill himself), more or less his story goes like this: He was one of the disciples, starting with high hopes of the son of god crushing the evil romans underfoot. He became the sort of treasurer of the disciples and sometimes took more that his own share for himself. Later, when it became apparent Jesus was not the expected military leader, he sold him out to the romans, and Jesus was crucified. Later, Judas killed himself out of remorse.
Now, that is very different from the traditional antagonist story. For one thing, he seems to see Jesus as the sort of traditional hero, the one who fights people so evil they aren't really people, but monsters. For one thing, those kind of people don't exist, and Jesus sees that. So, after his vision is crushed, yes he sells Jesus out to the romans, and yes he gets payed for it. But now his vision is changed, seeing Jesus as the person who isn't a person.
But the thing is, the antagonist never has remorse in most stories. That's what separates the bible from books and movies, it has people who are really people, each one of them. Judas knows he did a wrong, and takes it out on himself.
If Judas had resisted his urge to commit suicide, would Jesus condemn him? Hurt him? At the very least lecture him? I say probably not, unless Jesus was some sort of hypocrite or else dying changed him a lot. Remember the story of the parodical son? Yes, this is a fair bit more than wasting your savings, but since Judas felt remorse more painful than any cross of torture Jesus suffered, Jesus would have welcomed him and save him, even if the Other disciples might loath and despise him.
Speaking of which, have you ever wondered: what if Jesus has already come back, in some third world country or distant land. What if he's out there now with his own group of followers, waiting for us to hear.
As for the content, I've been reading about some film-maker, who says that in all his films, he tries to keep out any antagonist, because he believes there is no one person who is completely responsible for a major conflict and his or her death is the sole solution to it. I know this is an opinion I have talked about before, but when I read that opinion, I started wondering about if other stories follow that principle. So far, none the literature I've read in school has proven to have a realistic antagonist, nor have many of the books and movies I read or watch for pleasure. The I thought about it in terms of the bible.
If you asked most christians who the antagonist of the bible was, the knee-jerk reaction is to respond satan. But since I don't believe in satan in the first place, and he isn't really an antagonist that can be over-come (As long as it holds true that no humans, be Jesus sides, are sinless). So, as far as the Christ story goes, most people consider Judas the big-bad guy. And since I can't think of anyone else like that, let's go with him.
In case you're not familiar with the story of Judas (Or are victim to the rumors about him, such as he used the first ever gun to kill himself), more or less his story goes like this: He was one of the disciples, starting with high hopes of the son of god crushing the evil romans underfoot. He became the sort of treasurer of the disciples and sometimes took more that his own share for himself. Later, when it became apparent Jesus was not the expected military leader, he sold him out to the romans, and Jesus was crucified. Later, Judas killed himself out of remorse.
Now, that is very different from the traditional antagonist story. For one thing, he seems to see Jesus as the sort of traditional hero, the one who fights people so evil they aren't really people, but monsters. For one thing, those kind of people don't exist, and Jesus sees that. So, after his vision is crushed, yes he sells Jesus out to the romans, and yes he gets payed for it. But now his vision is changed, seeing Jesus as the person who isn't a person.
But the thing is, the antagonist never has remorse in most stories. That's what separates the bible from books and movies, it has people who are really people, each one of them. Judas knows he did a wrong, and takes it out on himself.
If Judas had resisted his urge to commit suicide, would Jesus condemn him? Hurt him? At the very least lecture him? I say probably not, unless Jesus was some sort of hypocrite or else dying changed him a lot. Remember the story of the parodical son? Yes, this is a fair bit more than wasting your savings, but since Judas felt remorse more painful than any cross of torture Jesus suffered, Jesus would have welcomed him and save him, even if the Other disciples might loath and despise him.
Speaking of which, have you ever wondered: what if Jesus has already come back, in some third world country or distant land. What if he's out there now with his own group of followers, waiting for us to hear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)