When I was in the 1st grade at St Mary Magdalene Catholic school in Chicago, our nun told us about guardian angels. She said that at the time of our birth, God assigns each of us our very own angel to watch over us and keep us safe from harm. As a six year old it seemed like a very cool concept. I actually had my very own bodyguard.
Of course as I grew into adulthood, my belief in a guardian angel went the route of Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy. I find it hard to believe that there are fully formed adults who still believe an invisible security guard is following their every move 24/7.
Seriously? A guardian angel? If these entities really do exist, they are without a doubt the most incompetent, useless protection force ever conceived. Every single day of every single year across this entire planet people are killed in car accidents, drowned, raped, beaten to death, molested, murdered and otherwise victimized by an endless variety of mayhem. A Boy Scout would be more efficient in offering protection.
For those who are avid believers in the Bible, there is one aspect to consider concerning guardian angels. Why would God even find the need to assign us each with an angel? It would be totally irrelevant. The Bible says God is prescient and omniscient. He sees all and knows all. He knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen.If He didn't possess this knowledge, He wouldn't be the Supreme Being we call God.
So if God knows all,that means He knows the entire course of your life the very instant you are conceived. He knows when and where you will be born, and He knows when, where and how you will die. Therefore, if He has full knowledge of our lives and the circumstances of our death, why would He need to assign us a guardian angel? For instance, if God can foresee that I will die at age 100 of heart failure, then it would be completely unnecessary to assign me a guardian angel to keep me out of the path of a speeding train because that is not how I am going to die.And if God knows I am going to die from heart failure, that means my guardian angel cannot change that fate, which makes the angel pointless.
Like so many Biblical stories and religious dogma, the idea of a guardian angel is riddled with contradictions and loose ends that defy logic. If I need security, I'll look up bodyguards online. They may not have wings, but they do carry guns.
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Monday, April 25, 2016
IS IT REALLY LOVE?
What is love? We all think we have the answer to that question. After all, haven't most of us loved, as well as being loved.
What we do know about love is that it comes in a variety of packages. There's the love for a parent and a parent's love for a child. There is the love for siblings and friends. Then there is love of a favorite food, or song, or movie star. And finally we have the most emotionally wrought variety of love--romantic love.
But do we really know what love is? There is strong evidence that many of us don't have a clue as to the meaning of love. For example, people often speak of love at first sight when describing their romantic relationships. But is there really such a thing as "love at first sight?" I contend there is not. There is certainly infatuation at first sight, and sexual attraction at first sight, but these feeling do not qualify as love. And here is why.
When we say we are in love with someone, it goes beyond the mere physical. To truly love someone we must thoroughly know that individual. We must know their personality, character traits, moral values, likes and dislikes. It is these attributes that we fall in love with, as well as the physicality. Ultimately we fall in love with the mind and heart of that person. Regardless of how strong the physical attraction, could you actually fall in love with a child molester, or rapist, or killer? It is not until we discover the underlying values of another can we truly say we have "fallen in love." For those values are who they are and what they are.
There is yet another example of misplaced love. Unlike the case of romantic infatuation, this second example is between people who know one another for extended periods of time--maybe their entire lives. The two most common examples would be the parent-child relationship, and the spousal or partner relationship. Now let us assume that there are people in these types of relationships who are victims of physical, mental or emotional abuse. Perhaps all three. The victim may be beaten, tortured, raped, humiliated, held up to the most vile types of verbal abuse and belittlement. Despite being subjected to these horrors, a child may swear their love for an abusive parent, a wife swearing her love for a sadistic husband. These two scenarios beg the question: How can you possibly profess your love for someone who causes such physical, mental and emotional pain and anguish? How can you love someone who holds you in such contempt and has no regard for your safety and wellbeing. That truly ranks as distortion and perversion of the term "love." So how can this be?
In the case of children, they are conditioned virtually from birth to love their parents. To do otherwise, regardless of how much they are brutalized by a parent, would be blasphemy.
In the case of spousal abuse, the abused partner believes themselves to be unlovable and unworthy of love, and as a result, even though they are abused by their partner, their thinking is that at least someone is there for them, no matter how sadistic that someone is.The alternative is loneliness and rejection. In both cases the root cause is a lack of self-esteem. The child and the spouse are beaten and degraded, and yet are dependent on their abusers for food, shelter and some degree of companionship. It is this they confuse as love.
Love is something all human beings seek and crave. It is the priceless commodity that should not be wasted on the undeserving. To pledge your love to someone is to reward them for their strength and values, while reaffirming your own self-worth and humanity.
What we do know about love is that it comes in a variety of packages. There's the love for a parent and a parent's love for a child. There is the love for siblings and friends. Then there is love of a favorite food, or song, or movie star. And finally we have the most emotionally wrought variety of love--romantic love.
But do we really know what love is? There is strong evidence that many of us don't have a clue as to the meaning of love. For example, people often speak of love at first sight when describing their romantic relationships. But is there really such a thing as "love at first sight?" I contend there is not. There is certainly infatuation at first sight, and sexual attraction at first sight, but these feeling do not qualify as love. And here is why.
When we say we are in love with someone, it goes beyond the mere physical. To truly love someone we must thoroughly know that individual. We must know their personality, character traits, moral values, likes and dislikes. It is these attributes that we fall in love with, as well as the physicality. Ultimately we fall in love with the mind and heart of that person. Regardless of how strong the physical attraction, could you actually fall in love with a child molester, or rapist, or killer? It is not until we discover the underlying values of another can we truly say we have "fallen in love." For those values are who they are and what they are.
There is yet another example of misplaced love. Unlike the case of romantic infatuation, this second example is between people who know one another for extended periods of time--maybe their entire lives. The two most common examples would be the parent-child relationship, and the spousal or partner relationship. Now let us assume that there are people in these types of relationships who are victims of physical, mental or emotional abuse. Perhaps all three. The victim may be beaten, tortured, raped, humiliated, held up to the most vile types of verbal abuse and belittlement. Despite being subjected to these horrors, a child may swear their love for an abusive parent, a wife swearing her love for a sadistic husband. These two scenarios beg the question: How can you possibly profess your love for someone who causes such physical, mental and emotional pain and anguish? How can you love someone who holds you in such contempt and has no regard for your safety and wellbeing. That truly ranks as distortion and perversion of the term "love." So how can this be?
In the case of children, they are conditioned virtually from birth to love their parents. To do otherwise, regardless of how much they are brutalized by a parent, would be blasphemy.
In the case of spousal abuse, the abused partner believes themselves to be unlovable and unworthy of love, and as a result, even though they are abused by their partner, their thinking is that at least someone is there for them, no matter how sadistic that someone is.The alternative is loneliness and rejection. In both cases the root cause is a lack of self-esteem. The child and the spouse are beaten and degraded, and yet are dependent on their abusers for food, shelter and some degree of companionship. It is this they confuse as love.
Love is something all human beings seek and crave. It is the priceless commodity that should not be wasted on the undeserving. To pledge your love to someone is to reward them for their strength and values, while reaffirming your own self-worth and humanity.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
PRIMARY DECEPTION
The primary elections have morphed into primary chaos and confusion. Let us count the ways: delegates and super delegates; candidates winning delegates in Colorado without any election, Bernie Sanders winning 7 straight primaries, yet way behind in delegate votes to Hillary Clinton; elections running from January to June. How did it come to this?
The reason is as simple as the primary process is complicated. The current primary system allows for manipulation and deal making by elites of both Parties. (We don't like the candidate that is the leading vote getter, so we'll just play it fast and loose with state delegates).
What we need is a complete overhaul of the primary election process. Put the power back into the hands of the citizens instead of Party bosses.
First, let's stop spreading the primaries over a 6 month period, from January to June. If we can elect a president on one designated polling day, then we can certainly do the same for selecting the candidates to run for that office. It would obviously save time, as well as saving an abundance of money.
Second, let the candidates be chosen by popular vote, rather than by delegates. That change would once again give full power to the citizens of this country.
The current primary system is a remnant of a past age, when travel and the dissemination of information was severely limited and painfully slow. We are now in the 21st century--the era of jets, superhighways, the internet and cable and satellite TV. The day of the backroom political deal and delegate shuffling should go the way of the telegraph and horse and buggy. What should be primary is the will of the people.
The reason is as simple as the primary process is complicated. The current primary system allows for manipulation and deal making by elites of both Parties. (We don't like the candidate that is the leading vote getter, so we'll just play it fast and loose with state delegates).
What we need is a complete overhaul of the primary election process. Put the power back into the hands of the citizens instead of Party bosses.
First, let's stop spreading the primaries over a 6 month period, from January to June. If we can elect a president on one designated polling day, then we can certainly do the same for selecting the candidates to run for that office. It would obviously save time, as well as saving an abundance of money.
Second, let the candidates be chosen by popular vote, rather than by delegates. That change would once again give full power to the citizens of this country.
The current primary system is a remnant of a past age, when travel and the dissemination of information was severely limited and painfully slow. We are now in the 21st century--the era of jets, superhighways, the internet and cable and satellite TV. The day of the backroom political deal and delegate shuffling should go the way of the telegraph and horse and buggy. What should be primary is the will of the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)