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
14 January 2009
When the Decency of the Cause Overrides the Indecency of Its Leader
The Rev. Jesse Jackson is the kind of man that many people love to hate and he thrives on it. He is a bigger than life personality (a nuisance to some) who will not go away or be diminished. Even his failures (and they have mounted up in recent years) haven’t put a stop to his train, although they have slowed him down a bit.
Born in the deep south to a single mother when race relations were very poor (1941) there wasn’t a lot of impetus to catapult Jesse into international recognition. To say he was suppressed would be an understatement. In those days he couldn’t even choose which part of the bus to ride on. Water fountains, loos and restaurants were constant reminders that he was black and therefore scorned by the white culture that surrounded him.
Not one to be kowtowed or brow beaten Jesse fought back and he is one tenacious fellow. Naturally endowed with a strong sense of confidence he never comfortably wore the “Uncle Tom” suit and he didn’t get along very well with those who could. He has a long history of gravitating to social injustice, particularly of the racial kind, bulldozing anyone who happens to be in the way and making lots of noise until everyone takes notice. Jesse epitomizes the old adage, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” It is not a pleasant job but he seems well suited for it and, as they say, someone has to do it.
To his credit, Jesse also knows how to flex. As racial imbalances adjusted Jesse moderated his approach. He went from addressing solely racial issues to tackling any situation he considered to represent social injustice and his list of accomplishments and activities are long. “Keep Hope Alive Radio” describes Jesse and some of his credits.
In spite of his accomplishments, however, many don’t trust Jesse and never will no matter what he does. When he confessed to an affair, the fruit of which was a daughter, along with misspending public money (in 2001), he was gleefully written off as finished. Not only did his disparagers expect him to die a painful and immediate death this, they thought, showed him to be the lying, thieving con-artist they always considered him to be. In their minds the real Jesse was finally exposed. But, alas, he didn’t go away. He is still standing; still making mistakes but still standing. Not as tall as he once did and I doubt he could make a serious run for the presidency now but, much to the surprise of many, Jesse hasn’t gone away and the big question is why.
Well, for those who don’t like Jesse, the answer will always be, “he is a conniving, slippery so and so who can squirm his way out of every mess” but the facts say something quite different.
For over 40 years, Jesse has provided the collective voice for all the pain and outrage felt by marginalized minorities, especially in the USA; a cause that needed very strong leadership. The reality is, addressing civil rights injustice in the early years was more like a contact sport than a diplomatic process and Jesse was the man for the job. He played “smash mouth politics” about as peacefully as could be done. No other civil rights leader has risen to the same heights, lasted as long or had the same level of influence.
When Jesse was born, racism had been a scar on the social life of America far too long and he, following the demise of Dr. King, willingly stepped in to address the need. Not everyone supported his bid for leadership, white or black, but he was driven and he couldn’t be stopped. He was a strong and natural leader who played no favorites and he has done a remarkable job. His speaking style is a bit punchy and very boisterous but, more than any other person, he has raised the consciousness level on civil injustice for all Americans even the ones who resist.
Jesse has often been accused of working only for himself and his transgressions have been magnified to substantiate the claim. Yes, he is human and makes his share of mistakes but the real Jesse truly cares and he has served a great cause. One much bigger than most are willing to admit.
You don’t have to think long or very deeply to realize that racism is more of a bad mark on American morality than even abortion. With abortion the pain is over very quickly shortly after life starts. Racism is a slow demoralizing death after you are born which spreads to all contemporaries and carries over to the next generation as well. It is a living death that never goes away and dealing with this problem is what got Jesse started in the first place. Many indignant voices have been raised against abortion. Jesse was one of the few willing to stare racism in the face and call it the evil it was. He wasn't a lone voice but he was probably the bravest and loudest of the bunch.
Jesse wasn’t happy only to fight for legislation dealing with the external layers of racism. He attacked the “old boy” inner sanctums whether political, academic or corporate. He was out to change the way people think and act and he has succeeded. Yes, along the way, he probably afforded himself more personal benefits than the public would normally allow their representatives but there are no rules of etiquette for this type of activism. In his unorthodox style he rode the boundaries and pushed the envelop but most people either cheered him on or quietly and shamefully muttered because he was cleaning stalls long overlooked by everyone else and he was bound to step in a little himself.
On the night Barack Obama was recognized as the victor in the 2008 Presidential elections Jesse celebrated, not with jeers and excessive “in your face” rollicking but with quiet tears. The significance of the occasion was not lost on Jesse. In spite of his criticisms and unkind remarks toward Obama, he realized his lifelong dream had come true. The real Jesse was caught on camera for all to see.
I hope all the detractors of Mr. Jackson are very careful in their personal lives. If they get caught with their pants down they will definitely have their legs knocked out from under them. If the only thing they have done is point fingers at Jesse they won't have a cause to stand on. ThinkAboutIt
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
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)
