Life is relational. It is impossible to exist apart from relationships and close ones involve people we see, talk to and hear daily. We work with and depend on these people. The relationship we have with them can be very good, very bad or somewhere in between. These close connections change us and enable us to influence change in others. Every person will move through many different relationships during the course of their life and each relationship will leave its mark but none will be as important as the bond we have with family, for many reasons.
The strongest influence on any person’s life, for good or bad, comes from the family. It is the first, it is the longest and it is, therefore, the most influential relationship anyone will have. Our first opinions were not arrived at through independent thought. They were imposed on us by the influence of this relationship. We accepted these initial ideas as gospel and assumed it was the common understanding.
"Relationship" for every person is immediate and automatic. There is no lag time between the conception of a child and the point at which they begin to live in relationship. Even a fetus shares the moods of the mother. They experience the movements of the mother. They obviously share the same space. They sense when mother is conversing with others and probably sense the emotional content of the conversation. They begin to relate to another human without even trying.
Once the child is born the process does not slow down. It leaps into high gear and the person in this situation who is least able to contribute to the relationship is the child.
Children do not choose to be born and they don’t choose the parents to which they are born but they will intentionally choose many other relationships outside the family. Developing the discernment to know which relationships to pursue and which to avoid happens in the home. When family connections are strong and healthy kids learn by experience what a good relationship looks like and feels like. They know what to give and what to expect. Parent-child relationships managed in the right way provide a type of filter through which every other potential relationship can be assessed before it is engaged.
Unfortunately, relationship pain is the worst kind of pain in the world. Relationships are very easily established (even bad ones) but very difficult to dissolve and they never go away completely. When a person does manage to get out of a bad relationship it is never quite over. The pain doesn’t go away immediately and the scars are always there.
Parents cannot afford to miss the opportunity to engage relationally with their children. If bonding doesn’t take place in the home, the vacuum will be filled by the first relationship possibility that develops. That may be a very bad thing and even the parents can suffer with the pain of that choice for years.
A strong bond in the home is protective. After a child gets a taste for an accepting, affirming and supportive relationship in the family, it will be difficult for them to tolerate anything less. ThinkAboutIt
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
25 January 2009
06 January 2009
When Science Acts Like Religion
Philosophy is an area of study which confuses many but intrigues us all. If you have ever read a philosophy book you know exactly what I mean. The popular definition of philosophy is “the love of wisdom” (not knowledge) which is really more vague than clarifying but the The Free Dictionary helps us out with a very thorough definition, a portion of which follows: Philosophy is…
• The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
That is to say, philosophers tediously discuss ideas that can’t be proven true or false. They target your “beliefs” (faith) about the fundamental issues of life and focus on questions like these:
Where did we come from? How did we get here? How do we exist? What are thoughts made of? What constitutes morality?
The answers to all of these questions fall into the “belief” category and the philosopher’s intent is to substantiate or discredit those beliefs using logically arranged arguments. And they don’t all agree. The Free Dictionary lists over 180 different philosophies some of which blend, many of which clash violently.
Rene Descartes used philosophical arguments about “thought” to prove the existence of God. The popular statement, “I think, therefore I am” was coined by him.
David Hume and others, however, did just the opposite. They attempted to prove that “the conception of God” was not a reflection of His existence. But, (and this is an important truth) all philosophers begin with a supposition. They are dealing with beliefs and their premise in every case is unfounded. They may vehemently argue for what they “believe” (God or no God) but prove it they can’t.
Descartes was a theist and used philosophy to justify his theism. Hume was an agnostic/atheist and used philosophy to substantiate his “belief” system. The writings of these men and others have heavily influenced philosophical musings in recent times.
Now, because every person is philosophical by nature (God made us that way) most people are drawn into the discussion. And why not, it promises…not a possible answer, but the answer. If you are like me, you have on occasion bought (or borrowed) a book or two that includes the writings and thoughts of recognized philosophers. And, if you are like me, you have gotten lost in the rhetoric a time or two and been disappointed with the outcome. Descartes didn’t prove God existed and Hume couldn’t prove He didn’t. How frustrating!
But, that doesn’t stop us from philosophizing. The need to investigate is basic to our nature. Every person at heart grapples with the “what and why of life” and is motivated by some type of philosophy. Every generation produces its notable thinkers and we have ours today, one of whom, Richard Dawkins, has written a very interesting book, “The God Delusion.”
Mr. Dawkins is actually a scientist (ethologist - study of animal behavior) and he has an earned PhD. We applaud that. He is a clever guy. But, much of his writing is more philosophical than it is scientific. He is a rabid atheist and a staunch evolutionary biologist who has been referred to as "Darwin’s Rottweiler." His other books include “The Selfish Gene” (a gene based theory of evolution) and “The Blind Watchmaker” (arguing against the theologically based philosophy of intelligent design).
In his most recent book, “The God Delusion,” Mr. Dawkins paints a picture in which science gets only a shadow of a brush stroke, philosophy is used only for window dressing and religion mixed with politics is the primary element. In essence Mr. Dawkins argues against the idea of God, using as his primary proof, all the religious nonsense and abuse he can site and for a side dish he makes political institutions complicit in the whole scheme.
Interestingly enough, his observations are spot on. Religion (made and operated by man) has a poor track record when it comes to abuse and excess. In the name of “Religion” thousands have been hurt, many killed. On top of that, Religious institutions have managed to gain more than a fair share of the world’s wealth without being accountable for it. He is completely just in suggesting that “religion” has been politically pampered in every generation. It sickens even the religious.
He doesn’t spend much time talking about the good things religious people have done and he mostly ignores the diversity in religious beliefs and practices and I won’t spend time crying about it. If I did, I would be no better than Dawkins whose lack of originality was alluded to by Joan Blackwell in her review published at The Guardian: “Dawkins's most original contribution is the examination of why religion has persisted so long after the scientific revolution…” She supports Dawkins and seems to enjoy the diatribe tone of his “academic” essay.
What I will do, however, is point out a fundamental flaw in Dawkins’ argument. He can no more prove the non-existence of God by the actions of religious people (not all of whom represent the same “god”) than religious people can prove God exists by the actions of atheists. What is fair for one side is fair for the other.
If atheists use theists as an argument to prove God is a delusion then theists can use the character of the atheist community to argue for His existence. He doesn’t like it when we do this but it is fair and a quick internet search of the atheist community will reveal some scary stuff.
The level of accountability in the atheist community is very limited as well. No one has written the rule on acceptable behavior in an atheist world and, by the way, atheism is getting a fair share of pampering these days. Prayer was removed from public schools in America because the atheists were offended. Interesting. Many other political issues have fallen on the side of atheism also.
Dawkins writes intelligently and gives the impression of fairness but only the already convinced are moved. He agitates believers and entertains everyone else.
Score: Atheists 0 - Theists 0
Even his confidence that the world would be a better place if run without religion seemed a bit shaky when he confessed that organizing atheists is like “herding cats.” Interesting observation. An atheist led world would be nothing more than an experiment and it could prove catastrophic. Religion is the devil we know. Atheism is the one we don’t.
Mr. Dawkins can only assume that the world he advocates would be free, or at least less stained by abuses, more humanitarian, but how can he be certain of this? Has anyone written the bible on how an atheist world would operate? Marx wrote the manifesto (we all know how that turned out); maybe Dawkins will be inspired to write the bible. And don’t tell us it will all become obvious once the evolutionary process is ended (does it come to an end???). We have surely evolved sufficiently for many very clear principles to be established. Put them in writing. Let us see what you have. That is the democratic thing to do and it might relieve some of the bickering and arguing that takes place on a philosophical level.
The real question is this. Can we really use religion to prove God doesn’t exist? Can we really say religion is causing all the problems in the world? Would a world without religion really be more loving, nurturing, helpful, constructive and so on?
Unfortunately, there have been many transgressions by believers. Does that mean things will only get better if they didn’t believe? We can’t logically make that assumption. It might get worse. I shudder to think…
All of this makes for a very good discussion and I really enjoy it but it does generate a lot of friction so don’t get all worked up about the verbal punching that goes on. Just thank God that Christians influenced our modern world sufficiently to allow, even encourage, the free and open discussion, albeit heated occasionally, around differing philosophical opinions.
The only thing God has to say in this discussion is…
Note: Today “ethology” has been expanded to include human behavior. Maybe Mr. Dawkins influenced this trend. It does fit his philosophy and many recognized academic institutions agree, along with the non-thinking public. Sounds like atheists are getting pampered. ThinkAboutIt
• The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
That is to say, philosophers tediously discuss ideas that can’t be proven true or false. They target your “beliefs” (faith) about the fundamental issues of life and focus on questions like these:
The answers to all of these questions fall into the “belief” category and the philosopher’s intent is to substantiate or discredit those beliefs using logically arranged arguments. And they don’t all agree. The Free Dictionary lists over 180 different philosophies some of which blend, many of which clash violently.
Rene Descartes used philosophical arguments about “thought” to prove the existence of God. The popular statement, “I think, therefore I am” was coined by him.
David Hume and others, however, did just the opposite. They attempted to prove that “the conception of God” was not a reflection of His existence. But, (and this is an important truth) all philosophers begin with a supposition. They are dealing with beliefs and their premise in every case is unfounded. They may vehemently argue for what they “believe” (God or no God) but prove it they can’t.
Descartes was a theist and used philosophy to justify his theism. Hume was an agnostic/atheist and used philosophy to substantiate his “belief” system. The writings of these men and others have heavily influenced philosophical musings in recent times.
Now, because every person is philosophical by nature (God made us that way) most people are drawn into the discussion. And why not, it promises…not a possible answer, but the answer. If you are like me, you have on occasion bought (or borrowed) a book or two that includes the writings and thoughts of recognized philosophers. And, if you are like me, you have gotten lost in the rhetoric a time or two and been disappointed with the outcome. Descartes didn’t prove God existed and Hume couldn’t prove He didn’t. How frustrating!
But, that doesn’t stop us from philosophizing. The need to investigate is basic to our nature. Every person at heart grapples with the “what and why of life” and is motivated by some type of philosophy. Every generation produces its notable thinkers and we have ours today, one of whom, Richard Dawkins, has written a very interesting book, “The God Delusion.”
Mr. Dawkins is actually a scientist (ethologist - study of animal behavior) and he has an earned PhD. We applaud that. He is a clever guy. But, much of his writing is more philosophical than it is scientific. He is a rabid atheist and a staunch evolutionary biologist who has been referred to as "Darwin’s Rottweiler." His other books include “The Selfish Gene” (a gene based theory of evolution) and “The Blind Watchmaker” (arguing against the theologically based philosophy of intelligent design).
In his most recent book, “The God Delusion,” Mr. Dawkins paints a picture in which science gets only a shadow of a brush stroke, philosophy is used only for window dressing and religion mixed with politics is the primary element. In essence Mr. Dawkins argues against the idea of God, using as his primary proof, all the religious nonsense and abuse he can site and for a side dish he makes political institutions complicit in the whole scheme.
Interestingly enough, his observations are spot on. Religion (made and operated by man) has a poor track record when it comes to abuse and excess. In the name of “Religion” thousands have been hurt, many killed. On top of that, Religious institutions have managed to gain more than a fair share of the world’s wealth without being accountable for it. He is completely just in suggesting that “religion” has been politically pampered in every generation. It sickens even the religious.
He doesn’t spend much time talking about the good things religious people have done and he mostly ignores the diversity in religious beliefs and practices and I won’t spend time crying about it. If I did, I would be no better than Dawkins whose lack of originality was alluded to by Joan Blackwell in her review published at The Guardian: “Dawkins's most original contribution is the examination of why religion has persisted so long after the scientific revolution…” She supports Dawkins and seems to enjoy the diatribe tone of his “academic” essay.
What I will do, however, is point out a fundamental flaw in Dawkins’ argument. He can no more prove the non-existence of God by the actions of religious people (not all of whom represent the same “god”) than religious people can prove God exists by the actions of atheists. What is fair for one side is fair for the other.
If atheists use theists as an argument to prove God is a delusion then theists can use the character of the atheist community to argue for His existence. He doesn’t like it when we do this but it is fair and a quick internet search of the atheist community will reveal some scary stuff.
The level of accountability in the atheist community is very limited as well. No one has written the rule on acceptable behavior in an atheist world and, by the way, atheism is getting a fair share of pampering these days. Prayer was removed from public schools in America because the atheists were offended. Interesting. Many other political issues have fallen on the side of atheism also.
Dawkins writes intelligently and gives the impression of fairness but only the already convinced are moved. He agitates believers and entertains everyone else.
Even his confidence that the world would be a better place if run without religion seemed a bit shaky when he confessed that organizing atheists is like “herding cats.” Interesting observation. An atheist led world would be nothing more than an experiment and it could prove catastrophic. Religion is the devil we know. Atheism is the one we don’t.
Mr. Dawkins can only assume that the world he advocates would be free, or at least less stained by abuses, more humanitarian, but how can he be certain of this? Has anyone written the bible on how an atheist world would operate? Marx wrote the manifesto (we all know how that turned out); maybe Dawkins will be inspired to write the bible. And don’t tell us it will all become obvious once the evolutionary process is ended (does it come to an end???). We have surely evolved sufficiently for many very clear principles to be established. Put them in writing. Let us see what you have. That is the democratic thing to do and it might relieve some of the bickering and arguing that takes place on a philosophical level.
The real question is this. Can we really use religion to prove God doesn’t exist? Can we really say religion is causing all the problems in the world? Would a world without religion really be more loving, nurturing, helpful, constructive and so on?
Unfortunately, there have been many transgressions by believers. Does that mean things will only get better if they didn’t believe? We can’t logically make that assumption. It might get worse. I shudder to think…
All of this makes for a very good discussion and I really enjoy it but it does generate a lot of friction so don’t get all worked up about the verbal punching that goes on. Just thank God that Christians influenced our modern world sufficiently to allow, even encourage, the free and open discussion, albeit heated occasionally, around differing philosophical opinions.
The only thing God has to say in this discussion is…
He that comes to God (attempting to find Him) must believe that He is…(Hebrews 11:6)
Note: Today “ethology” has been expanded to include human behavior. Maybe Mr. Dawkins influenced this trend. It does fit his philosophy and many recognized academic institutions agree, along with the non-thinking public. Sounds like atheists are getting pampered. ThinkAboutIt
05 January 2009
Blogging = Saying What You Think
I first got into blogging because I had something to say. I enjoy spending time in the gaps, those areas where questions linger like elephants in the room. Everyone knows they are there but no one is willing to talk about them. It’s just too much work to address these big guys intelligently and you risk upsetting the apple cart when you do. But, if you think about something long enough (a very long time for me) you begin to fill in the gaps and make the loose ends connect. I am sure I won’t get to all the gaps during my life time but the exercise is gratifying and really second nature anyway. So, I think.
Of course, thinkers are also writers. I’m not extremely meticulous about this but when I have the time I enjoy putting words together in an effort to put my gap fillers on paper. That is why I started blogging. And its free!
Many companies offer free blogging templates and hosting to any person willing to journalize their thoughts. Millions of people are taking advantage of this. Do a Google (or MSN or Yahoo) search on any topic and thousands of blogs will be listed in the results. I happen to be using Blogger at the moment (one of the largest blog hosting companies if not the largest) but there are many different options to choose from. If you have never blogged I highly recommend it.
But, that isn’t the point of this post. The more I blogged the more interested I became in all the things that must happen for sites to be built and hosted and optimized and monetized and uploaded with original content and so on. I was fascinated. The more I learned, the more I discovered there was to learn and the more deeply I wanted to delve into the inner workings of this amazing form of media.
And what I discovered is, people are actually making money doing this. There are many ways to make that happen and I am still at the beginning end of this particular learning curve but as with every other investment in life you can’t make money without investing money. That is to say, doing the internet right costs bucks. I don’t have many of those so I have done the next best thing, patiently looked around for low cost opportunities to develop sites and make them interesting enough so people on the outside would have a "look see" and advertisers would put their face on what I have to say. And that is the reason for this particular post.
I got connected with a blog, SocialDN.com, who specializes in the Domain Name side of the internet business (a very interesting business even if done recreationally) and they are running a contest. You participate by executing a series of tasks each of which earns points and those with the highest points win internet related services which could otherwise cost hundreds of dollars. Since I have few of those (I mentioned that) I thought I would give it a go.
The amazing list of prizes follows:
DNXpert.com $100 cash via PayPal
InForum.in $200 cash via PayPal
EscrowDNS.com Escrow fees covered for 3 months
WhyPark.com 1 free 100 domain account worth $99
DomainerScript.com $50 gift certificate
MissDomain.com 3-Year Subscription to MissPark worth $660
Wordtracker.com 6 month subscription to Wordtracker worth $354
WebsiteHeaders.net Free Website Header Design woth $15
BannersGalore.net Free Ad Banner worth $10
ParkingRevolution.com Park 100 domains up to six months worth $90
SteadyNiche.com 1 Domain SteadyNiche License worth $9.95
DNStuff.com 3-Year Membership worth $199
ClickFire.com 1 month Clickfire home page 160 X 90 ad worth $200
TweetDailyDomains.com eAlso.com worth an indefinite amount
RegFeeDomains.com 2 x Domain Registrations at RegFeeDomains.com worth $16
DotSauce.com 1 lifetime membership to DotSauce Premium($10/mo value)worth an indefinite amount
FusedHosting.net 1 year of Shared 1 worth $32
FusedHosting.net 1 year of Proxy25 worth $30
Bido.com 1 Signed Copy of "The Domain Game" worth $30
Total Value: $2,100+
Wish me luck. I hope to win something.
But, to be honest I don’t want to have all this fun by myself. If you have never blogged, start today. I know you have something to say. Everyone does. Blogging can help you turn that self expression into something useful. And who knows, if you don’t “make” any money you might just “win” what money buys. ThinkAboutIt
Of course, thinkers are also writers. I’m not extremely meticulous about this but when I have the time I enjoy putting words together in an effort to put my gap fillers on paper. That is why I started blogging. And its free!
Many companies offer free blogging templates and hosting to any person willing to journalize their thoughts. Millions of people are taking advantage of this. Do a Google (or MSN or Yahoo) search on any topic and thousands of blogs will be listed in the results. I happen to be using Blogger at the moment (one of the largest blog hosting companies if not the largest) but there are many different options to choose from. If you have never blogged I highly recommend it.
But, that isn’t the point of this post. The more I blogged the more interested I became in all the things that must happen for sites to be built and hosted and optimized and monetized and uploaded with original content and so on. I was fascinated. The more I learned, the more I discovered there was to learn and the more deeply I wanted to delve into the inner workings of this amazing form of media.
And what I discovered is, people are actually making money doing this. There are many ways to make that happen and I am still at the beginning end of this particular learning curve but as with every other investment in life you can’t make money without investing money. That is to say, doing the internet right costs bucks. I don’t have many of those so I have done the next best thing, patiently looked around for low cost opportunities to develop sites and make them interesting enough so people on the outside would have a "look see" and advertisers would put their face on what I have to say. And that is the reason for this particular post.
I got connected with a blog, SocialDN.com, who specializes in the Domain Name side of the internet business (a very interesting business even if done recreationally) and they are running a contest. You participate by executing a series of tasks each of which earns points and those with the highest points win internet related services which could otherwise cost hundreds of dollars. Since I have few of those (I mentioned that) I thought I would give it a go.
The amazing list of prizes follows:
Wish me luck. I hope to win something.
But, to be honest I don’t want to have all this fun by myself. If you have never blogged, start today. I know you have something to say. Everyone does. Blogging can help you turn that self expression into something useful. And who knows, if you don’t “make” any money you might just “win” what money buys. ThinkAboutIt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
