This piece complements the one recently published under the title Our American Classrooms -- Institutions of Learning or Localized Dictatorships? We have a few more comments to make on the subject of a misdirected educational system.
People here and there seem forever to talk about certain schools as being great, leading, outstanding, model, tops, or whatever. In contrast, therefore, those not so glorified automatically become classified as mediocre or worse.
At this point, we'll jump in with our private opinion that there is no such thing as a poor school. Instead we have poor students, due mainly to countless legions of "yessir, nosir, no excusesir" teachers who conform to the system's rigid rules, focusing on disciplinary control, adherence to going by the proverbial book straight down the line, and results measurement exclusively by exam grades.
It's true that a competent teacher will periodically be blessed with a brightly shining pupil, whose classroom capabilities remain in the mentor's memory throughout his or her career. However, this is far from the issue. We needn't be concerned with the occasional brilliant learner and self-applier. The problem revolves around the hoi polloi -- those never properly oriented as to what schooling should really be all about. Meanwhile, as Charles Sullivan laid out so effectively in his essay of previous blog article reference, the system has long been churning out excessively-disciplined automatons, not creative-minded citizens, by the millions.
For further emphasis, we wish to add that we consider strict rule adherence doctrines to be highly non-beneficial. They mold education into a fear-bound process, and accomplish little from the standpoints of individual thinking and free expression.
Nevertheless, we can't overlook the necessity of maintaining schoolroom order, which will require teachers to finally shed their hitherto lord and master rules to become understanding leaders and guidance counselors instead. Obviously, in light of the already hidebound traditions which prevail, this won't exactly be an overnight development. In fact, we're inclined to fear it may never happen.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
A SEASONED VETERAN'S VIEW OF THE ECONOMY
Our present era news columnists, television announcers, and other media pundits everywhere are compelled to earn their livings, which means they must continually dream up copy to write or events to comment on, even if it adds up to tedious repetition. Moreover, with their ranks having become so abnormally plentiful, we literally get bombed all day long and day after day with the latest hot poop, altogether too often in regard to how sick our current economic picture happens to be. Since doom and gloom tends to attract headline readers and capture the attention of listening ears, that has become an overly popular theme.
For the benefit of those too young to remember our so-labeled Great Depression of 1929-1937, we will now offer some reassurance by bluntly saying "Look, Folks, these problems today ain't nothin' in comparison".
No, they really ain't, and that's for dang sure. Back in 1933, following a full dozen years of Republican administration bunglings, which included allowing organized crime to flourish due to that imbecilic prohibition law, the economy had sunk to an unprecedented low. Regardless of what you read and hear these days, such condition has not been repeated by a long shot.
Presently however, we can thank the blessed GOP for having done their level best to try making it happen all over again. After Bill Clinton had managed to return the country to at least an annual budget surplus position, a pair of clowns named Bush and Cheney blew the ball game by spending the whole bundle and more engaging in fisticuffs with Sadam Hussein and the Taliban, while attempting to track down the elusive Osama bin Laden. In the meantime, our smirking, foreclosure-motivated finance industry went wild offering fictitious credit swindles for the public to gobble up with hitherto unmatched frenzy, and we suddenly lost our collective ass -- although not enough to prevent the banking wizards from doling out massive government assistance funds as executive bonuses at staggering rates.
Still, despite this eight-year sojourn of Bush-Cheney stupidity, what President Obama inherited in 2009 doesn't hold the proverbial candle to the mess FDR had to face seventy-six years earlier. As depressions go, that was a doozy. We weren't noticing gradual recovery indicators as early as 1933, which has already become the case now.
To help fortify our point, we're about to look back upon common incidents that kept occurring throughout those virtually forgotten mid-thirties, and ask how much has repeated itself in this current age. For example:
* How many city block-long breadlines have you seen, either in person or on TV screens?
* Right around the corner from the breadlines, how many men have you similarly viewed
queuing up by the hundreds, waiting to apply for jobs -- any whatsoever?
* How many freight trains have you watched roll past with primarily empty deadheading
cars?
* Furthermore, how often have you been able to count fifty or more hoboes riding atop or
standing inside the open doors of those empty rail cars?
* How many tramps have shown up at your front door either asking to do odd jobs on your
property in return for a single meal, or else simply requesting some of your pocket change?
We haven't had retail or other small business enterprises go bankrupt in fantastic proportions.
Relatively speaking, many seem to be doing rather well in view of this supposedly disastrous downturn.
Restaurants are still crowded at lunch and dinner hours. We observe football stadia, baseball parks, boxing and other sport arenas constantly filled to capacity. We often find standing room only at theater and concert performances. Little or no such ongoing bonanzas existed back then.
Since a man could barely afford to take his kids to a ball game in the afternoon or his wife and family out to an evening movie, he was at least able to drop over to the nearest ice cream emporium and spend a relatively small sum for a household treat to be enjoyed. While slurping away, the people would sit and listen to popular nighttime radio programs, absolutely free. A small degree of pleasure thus remained available at minimal cost. How many of you have had to resort to such penny-pinching activities in the past couple years?
No indeed, this economic stumbling of today ain't nothin' in contrast. Believe us, we sat through the entire rugged affair.
For the benefit of those too young to remember our so-labeled Great Depression of 1929-1937, we will now offer some reassurance by bluntly saying "Look, Folks, these problems today ain't nothin' in comparison".
No, they really ain't, and that's for dang sure. Back in 1933, following a full dozen years of Republican administration bunglings, which included allowing organized crime to flourish due to that imbecilic prohibition law, the economy had sunk to an unprecedented low. Regardless of what you read and hear these days, such condition has not been repeated by a long shot.
Presently however, we can thank the blessed GOP for having done their level best to try making it happen all over again. After Bill Clinton had managed to return the country to at least an annual budget surplus position, a pair of clowns named Bush and Cheney blew the ball game by spending the whole bundle and more engaging in fisticuffs with Sadam Hussein and the Taliban, while attempting to track down the elusive Osama bin Laden. In the meantime, our smirking, foreclosure-motivated finance industry went wild offering fictitious credit swindles for the public to gobble up with hitherto unmatched frenzy, and we suddenly lost our collective ass -- although not enough to prevent the banking wizards from doling out massive government assistance funds as executive bonuses at staggering rates.
Still, despite this eight-year sojourn of Bush-Cheney stupidity, what President Obama inherited in 2009 doesn't hold the proverbial candle to the mess FDR had to face seventy-six years earlier. As depressions go, that was a doozy. We weren't noticing gradual recovery indicators as early as 1933, which has already become the case now.
To help fortify our point, we're about to look back upon common incidents that kept occurring throughout those virtually forgotten mid-thirties, and ask how much has repeated itself in this current age. For example:
* How many city block-long breadlines have you seen, either in person or on TV screens?
* Right around the corner from the breadlines, how many men have you similarly viewed
queuing up by the hundreds, waiting to apply for jobs -- any whatsoever?
* How many freight trains have you watched roll past with primarily empty deadheading
cars?
* Furthermore, how often have you been able to count fifty or more hoboes riding atop or
standing inside the open doors of those empty rail cars?
* How many tramps have shown up at your front door either asking to do odd jobs on your
property in return for a single meal, or else simply requesting some of your pocket change?
We haven't had retail or other small business enterprises go bankrupt in fantastic proportions.
Relatively speaking, many seem to be doing rather well in view of this supposedly disastrous downturn.
Restaurants are still crowded at lunch and dinner hours. We observe football stadia, baseball parks, boxing and other sport arenas constantly filled to capacity. We often find standing room only at theater and concert performances. Little or no such ongoing bonanzas existed back then.
Since a man could barely afford to take his kids to a ball game in the afternoon or his wife and family out to an evening movie, he was at least able to drop over to the nearest ice cream emporium and spend a relatively small sum for a household treat to be enjoyed. While slurping away, the people would sit and listen to popular nighttime radio programs, absolutely free. A small degree of pleasure thus remained available at minimal cost. How many of you have had to resort to such penny-pinching activities in the past couple years?
No indeed, this economic stumbling of today ain't nothin' in contrast. Believe us, we sat through the entire rugged affair.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
OUR AMERICAN CLASSROOMS -- INSTITUTIONS OF LEARNING OR LOCALIZED DICTATORSHIPS?
Almost everyone these days seems to be aware that our educational system has reached a near-chaotic state. In this writer's usual ultra-critical opinion, this certainly isn't a situation of recent origin. As far as we're concerned, it dates back at least to when this fellow was a rosy-cheeked lad seated in the normal succession of schoolrooms, not so dutifully, not so obediently, and not so impressed with the teaching and disciplinary methods employed.
A browse of the internet will turn up several latter-day essays discussing how and why the process has fallen on its face. Most of them tend to dance around the issue, offering analytical comment from a politically-oriented angle. However, a particular piece by a man named Charles Sullivan entitled The Failure of Mass Education, published in February 2003, hits quite a few nails on their proverbial heads. Our readers are urged to call this one up and go over it closely.
For purposes of emphasis, we've chosen to reproduce Mr. Sullivan's opening paragraph, which sums up the mess quite nicely.
"What are our public schools but an instrument of the state? Our students are not taught the
skills of critical thinking that would serve them well as citizens in a free society for the
entirety of their lives. Mass education focuses upon memorization and scoring well on exams.
Our schools do not promote independent thought or independent actions -- they teach
conformity and control of the masses. Every student is taught virtually the same thing in
essentially the same way -- much of it untrue; especially history and economics. Our
students are not educated to become useful and creative members of society; they are
programmed to be unquestioning conformists and mindless consumers of goods and
propaganda. Thus we are creating a society of automatons who will never challenge
authority, who will behave predictably and will be staunch defenders of the status quo. In
other words, they will become the passive core of American society."
Being strongly in accord with this article's content, we promptly shot off a lengthy email to Charles Sullivan, congratulating him profusely and adding a few relative opinions of our own. For some unfortunate reason, though, the address shown at the piece's end is no longer valid, in light of the failure notice received. Nevertheless, we feel compelled to pass on the above digest of his thoughts, along with a few more observations from our personal "dear old golden rule days" experience.
In thirteen years, from kindergarten to high school graduation, we cannot recall a single instance where any Miss Pruneface up front ever made a statement to the effect that school was an institution where her sworn duty as a teacher involved making sure we students adequately educated ourselves. Oh no, the attitude conveyed never deviated a centimeter from "You'll either behave properly, read your textbooks carefully, and get high examination grades, or suffer the slings and arrows of lifelong damnation".
As a result of living and working in several foreign countries for more than four decades, we've dealt with people from quite a few other nationalities. In many cases, mutual understanding could be difficult, due to variations in the respective teaching practices to which we'd been exposed. However, we never had the slightest communication problems with fellow American expatriates. The main reason is that we all had had identical history, geography, literary, and other classroom dogma crammed down our throats while progressing from one grade to the next. Our common educational backgrounds were predicated on stereotyped methodology.
By way of partial redemption, we are pleased to add that we didn't find such ongoing conditions to be as catastrophic at the university level. Students reaching that stage have attained reasonable maturity and have pretty good ideas about what they're shooting for. Unhappily, a countless number of youthful minds have already become somewhat warped, thanks to their schoolroom training to date.
One of the most severe flaws in our education process is the supposedly vital importance attached to passing examinations with the highest possible marks. Consequently, cheating
by all sorts of means has prevailed for centuries, even in university classrooms. This malady will undoubtedly continue so long as today's teaching doctrines remain unchanged.
Once again, no instructor ever told us the unvarnished truth about periodic tests being intended to show the student how fully he or she has grasped the essential subject matter, thus conveying the need for increased diligence where warranted. Instead, the whole affair has evolved into a rat race, where a person must strive in every possible way to outdo the young ladies and gents seated alongside.
For several years, this writer has been carrying on disappointing one-way correspondence with numerous former classmates. Many have resorted to non-replies, even via quickie email messages, because of a few caustic remarks about the old days. Perhaps equating our high school administration with the Gestapo has had something to do with this ex-communication. Additionally, occasional reference to the institution's revered female Dean of Girls as the Iron Bitch has most likely been another factor. Still, such rather exaggerated opinions stand firm, with no thought of retraction ever being considered.
On the slightly favorable side, we do admit to having grown to respect just three individual high school teachers for their competence and conscientiousness, despite the systematic rigidity foisted on them. The rest were merely punching time clocks and dishing out what the dogma called for. Like Adolph Eichmann, they were only following orders.
Subsequent to our own learning days, we went on to suffer the discomfort of observing the educational process applied to three growing children under North American policies. Not a single improvment was ever noted over our earlier student era.
How long will it be before our teaching monarchy finally realizes and accepts the fact that this perennially-sagging atmosphere simply has to be rectified?
A browse of the internet will turn up several latter-day essays discussing how and why the process has fallen on its face. Most of them tend to dance around the issue, offering analytical comment from a politically-oriented angle. However, a particular piece by a man named Charles Sullivan entitled The Failure of Mass Education, published in February 2003, hits quite a few nails on their proverbial heads. Our readers are urged to call this one up and go over it closely.
For purposes of emphasis, we've chosen to reproduce Mr. Sullivan's opening paragraph, which sums up the mess quite nicely.
"What are our public schools but an instrument of the state? Our students are not taught the
skills of critical thinking that would serve them well as citizens in a free society for the
entirety of their lives. Mass education focuses upon memorization and scoring well on exams.
Our schools do not promote independent thought or independent actions -- they teach
conformity and control of the masses. Every student is taught virtually the same thing in
essentially the same way -- much of it untrue; especially history and economics. Our
students are not educated to become useful and creative members of society; they are
programmed to be unquestioning conformists and mindless consumers of goods and
propaganda. Thus we are creating a society of automatons who will never challenge
authority, who will behave predictably and will be staunch defenders of the status quo. In
other words, they will become the passive core of American society."
Being strongly in accord with this article's content, we promptly shot off a lengthy email to Charles Sullivan, congratulating him profusely and adding a few relative opinions of our own. For some unfortunate reason, though, the address shown at the piece's end is no longer valid, in light of the failure notice received. Nevertheless, we feel compelled to pass on the above digest of his thoughts, along with a few more observations from our personal "dear old golden rule days" experience.
In thirteen years, from kindergarten to high school graduation, we cannot recall a single instance where any Miss Pruneface up front ever made a statement to the effect that school was an institution where her sworn duty as a teacher involved making sure we students adequately educated ourselves. Oh no, the attitude conveyed never deviated a centimeter from "You'll either behave properly, read your textbooks carefully, and get high examination grades, or suffer the slings and arrows of lifelong damnation".
As a result of living and working in several foreign countries for more than four decades, we've dealt with people from quite a few other nationalities. In many cases, mutual understanding could be difficult, due to variations in the respective teaching practices to which we'd been exposed. However, we never had the slightest communication problems with fellow American expatriates. The main reason is that we all had had identical history, geography, literary, and other classroom dogma crammed down our throats while progressing from one grade to the next. Our common educational backgrounds were predicated on stereotyped methodology.
By way of partial redemption, we are pleased to add that we didn't find such ongoing conditions to be as catastrophic at the university level. Students reaching that stage have attained reasonable maturity and have pretty good ideas about what they're shooting for. Unhappily, a countless number of youthful minds have already become somewhat warped, thanks to their schoolroom training to date.
One of the most severe flaws in our education process is the supposedly vital importance attached to passing examinations with the highest possible marks. Consequently, cheating
by all sorts of means has prevailed for centuries, even in university classrooms. This malady will undoubtedly continue so long as today's teaching doctrines remain unchanged.
Once again, no instructor ever told us the unvarnished truth about periodic tests being intended to show the student how fully he or she has grasped the essential subject matter, thus conveying the need for increased diligence where warranted. Instead, the whole affair has evolved into a rat race, where a person must strive in every possible way to outdo the young ladies and gents seated alongside.
For several years, this writer has been carrying on disappointing one-way correspondence with numerous former classmates. Many have resorted to non-replies, even via quickie email messages, because of a few caustic remarks about the old days. Perhaps equating our high school administration with the Gestapo has had something to do with this ex-communication. Additionally, occasional reference to the institution's revered female Dean of Girls as the Iron Bitch has most likely been another factor. Still, such rather exaggerated opinions stand firm, with no thought of retraction ever being considered.
On the slightly favorable side, we do admit to having grown to respect just three individual high school teachers for their competence and conscientiousness, despite the systematic rigidity foisted on them. The rest were merely punching time clocks and dishing out what the dogma called for. Like Adolph Eichmann, they were only following orders.
Subsequent to our own learning days, we went on to suffer the discomfort of observing the educational process applied to three growing children under North American policies. Not a single improvment was ever noted over our earlier student era.
How long will it be before our teaching monarchy finally realizes and accepts the fact that this perennially-sagging atmosphere simply has to be rectified?
Thursday, January 7, 2010
A PAIR OF LEFT-HANDED TRIBUTES
The late night TV show host/comedian Jay Leno has been known to make the following observation in regard to our two leading political parties:
"Every time I think I might want to be a Republican they do something greedy. Every time I
think I might want to be a Democrat they do something stupid."
We are inclined to agree with Mr. Leno to the extent of 75%, which means that the "stupid" label most certainly fits, but we'd substitute "dirty" for "greedy" in the second instance.
There is no doubt that GOP doctrines have long been greed motivated. However, their political maneuvering tactics have seldom failed to take an insulting and underhanded approach, from the days of FDR right up to the 2008 election campaign. Still, what can one expect from a party that has managed to turn out only two completely worthy Presidents (Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt) in all U.S. history?
On the other hand, the Democrats have had their fair share of near-moronic moves for as far back as we can remember.
As always, this writer stands open to debate on such issues.
"Every time I think I might want to be a Republican they do something greedy. Every time I
think I might want to be a Democrat they do something stupid."
We are inclined to agree with Mr. Leno to the extent of 75%, which means that the "stupid" label most certainly fits, but we'd substitute "dirty" for "greedy" in the second instance.
There is no doubt that GOP doctrines have long been greed motivated. However, their political maneuvering tactics have seldom failed to take an insulting and underhanded approach, from the days of FDR right up to the 2008 election campaign. Still, what can one expect from a party that has managed to turn out only two completely worthy Presidents (Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt) in all U.S. history?
On the other hand, the Democrats have had their fair share of near-moronic moves for as far back as we can remember.
As always, this writer stands open to debate on such issues.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
THOUGHTS ON SHORT-TERM CONFINEMENT -- A RATHER INAPPROPRIATE PERSONAL ANALOGY
The scenario we're about to create is purely speculative in nature, for reasons which will readily become obvious. Nevertheless, we're unable to resist dwelling on a little relatively senseless conjecture.
Should this writer be offered the option of spending a month flat on his back in a hospital bed or else in a prison cell, quite frankly a coin flip would be required. Furthermore, if the clink sojourn turned out to be the loser, insistence would likely be placed on at least a two-out-of-three toss basis.
As already stated, this is no more than a hypothetical issue. It's clear that a hospital stay becomes necessary only for health treatment purposes, while going to the pokey stems from breaking the law. The underlying reasons aren't even remotely comparable.
Still, that's not the point we're endeavoring to establish. We're simply saying that a short prison sentence appears preferable in certain respects to sick room confinement.
The immediately foregoing statement isn't based on mere theory. This writer has had his fair share of days reclining in a hospital room. On the other hand, he cannot attest to having spent a month in a civilian hoosegow. A longer stretch as a prisoner of war a few international skirmishes ago must be excluded from comparison, due to many entirely different underlying circumstances.
Now let's move straight to the meat of the situation, namely our personal reasons for giving preference to a supposed jail term over a hospital stay.
First of all, in prison one is allowed to move about within a cell, albeit somewhat cramped spacewise, supplemented by daily strolls outside.
Moreover, nobody comes in every hour or so to glare at you while jabbing needles into your arm, stuffing you with pills, checking your blood pressure and other vital signs, or whatever else is needed to further your recovery. We deem freedom of mobility to be more important than being tied down to a bed and probed in the extreme. Besides, visitors can come see you in either situation.
There is one major offsetting element, of course, in that the people tending to you at the hospital are bound to be far kinder and gentler than the unsavory criminal characters who share slammer quarters with you. Perhaps we're putting insufficient emphasis on this matter. We'd have to be tossed into a cell for about 30 days before arriving at a more fully-studied conclusion.
Before closing this somewhat inane piece, we must acknowledge that neither the patient nor the inmate really amounts to any more than a mere number -- a statistic in recorded medical or correctional history -- even though allowed to retain his or her name for mere identification purposes while on-scene, and becoming almost totally forgotten thereafter.
Should this writer be offered the option of spending a month flat on his back in a hospital bed or else in a prison cell, quite frankly a coin flip would be required. Furthermore, if the clink sojourn turned out to be the loser, insistence would likely be placed on at least a two-out-of-three toss basis.
As already stated, this is no more than a hypothetical issue. It's clear that a hospital stay becomes necessary only for health treatment purposes, while going to the pokey stems from breaking the law. The underlying reasons aren't even remotely comparable.
Still, that's not the point we're endeavoring to establish. We're simply saying that a short prison sentence appears preferable in certain respects to sick room confinement.
The immediately foregoing statement isn't based on mere theory. This writer has had his fair share of days reclining in a hospital room. On the other hand, he cannot attest to having spent a month in a civilian hoosegow. A longer stretch as a prisoner of war a few international skirmishes ago must be excluded from comparison, due to many entirely different underlying circumstances.
Now let's move straight to the meat of the situation, namely our personal reasons for giving preference to a supposed jail term over a hospital stay.
First of all, in prison one is allowed to move about within a cell, albeit somewhat cramped spacewise, supplemented by daily strolls outside.
Moreover, nobody comes in every hour or so to glare at you while jabbing needles into your arm, stuffing you with pills, checking your blood pressure and other vital signs, or whatever else is needed to further your recovery. We deem freedom of mobility to be more important than being tied down to a bed and probed in the extreme. Besides, visitors can come see you in either situation.
There is one major offsetting element, of course, in that the people tending to you at the hospital are bound to be far kinder and gentler than the unsavory criminal characters who share slammer quarters with you. Perhaps we're putting insufficient emphasis on this matter. We'd have to be tossed into a cell for about 30 days before arriving at a more fully-studied conclusion.
Before closing this somewhat inane piece, we must acknowledge that neither the patient nor the inmate really amounts to any more than a mere number -- a statistic in recorded medical or correctional history -- even though allowed to retain his or her name for mere identification purposes while on-scene, and becoming almost totally forgotten thereafter.
ON ARKS, ONLY BEGOTTEN SONS, AIDS, AND SPARROWS
The words you're about to read are not the outpourings of a deeply religious-minded person, but rather one who tries to look at all things in a practical light.
Moreover, the intent here is not to debate in the slightest regarding the authenticity of the Bible.
For purposes of this treatise, it must be presumed that all the words in the Good Book represent
absolute facts. Otherwise, proceeding any further would be useless.
The Book of Genesis tells how God advised Noah to build an Ark, so that each living animal species might be preserved to "start over". Then came the Flood, wiping out all land-based creatures in the known world of that era, except for those aboard the vessel.
What is the theological significance of said event? Simply that the Almighty had become disappointed with how Mankind -- conceived in His own image -- had grown to behave. He elected to eradicate His mistake and offer a second chance in that world sector considered to be the seat of religion.
Therefore God, in His infinite wisdom, carried out a destructive act against His living beings. So what was the result? Did Man wise up and improve upon its ways? We all know the answer to that.
Since taking such a devastating course had accomplished little in the long run, a second gigantic gesture was then made -- this time a most productive one. The Lord begat and placed His own son among the people on earth, as described in the first four books of the New Testament.
There is no need to elaborate on the story about Jesus' life and death. Most of us have already been thoroughly indoctrinated on that score. The important point is the manifold influence wrought by the Son of God. Christianity has become the world's dominant faith, and has affected our life styles, business practices, and laws, often infringing significantly upon those who choose different religious pursuits.
Truly, the coming of Christ indeed proved to be supremely influential. His presence may well be felt for ongoing millennia. Unquestionably, this was the Almighty's most productive act since earth's creation.
Did this master step work? We might say yes, at least in contrast to the Ark bit. Still, would you call Mankind's subsequent performance/behavior pattern to date adequate in respect to God's divine will? Absolutely not, and we see no need to cite the countless whats and whys of our negative response to such question.
We've now reached the stage in this writing where biblical "fact" leaves off and supposition must take over.
Within very recent years, a strange hitherto unknown physical malady has contaminated our population. The medical brains have dubbed it the Acquired Immunity Deficiency Syndrome, or AIDS for short. Only homosexuals and prostitutes were attacked at first, but the effect has since become far more widespread, even among many innocent of unnatural or promiscuous misdeeds.
Some relatively fanatical religious types have rationalized AIDS as a "penalty" imposition upon the less-than-straight-and-true populace. Although initial reaction of a logical-minded person might be to scoff at such theory, a little probing analysis actually tends to support the idea, no matter how ridiculous it may sound right off.
If we look back at the Almighty's two "really big" past acts in dealing with humanity -- one destructive, the other productive -- does it not stand to reason that a selective process has now been put into play? Can we arbitrarily dismiss the thought that God has chosen to inflict punishment on those who offend him, due to their immoral habits? Might placing a death sentence upon those who engage in such practices be of divine origin?
Still, we find a strict affirmative answer rather difficult to offer, on the premise that the innocent are suffering and dying along with the guilty. Many men, women, and children bearing untarnished records must have perished in the Flood. With our presumption of unquestionable fact for the Holy Scriptures, it must stand to reason as well that God Himself is not perfect. The "He who weeps at the fall of a sparrow" reference could be a debatable issue.
Prolonging the conjecture on this last topic seems needless, except to simply add that, taken in isolation, our AIDS thesis could easily be deemed unacceptable. Nevertheless, when viewed in perspective with the two major foregoing events -- provided they are considered factual by the reader -- the idea does appear to have merit.
None of us here today can really prove or disprove either the Ark or the Messiah acts to have occurred as written about. Individual interpretations remain a matter of personal belief. However, the last point we've raised, which may eventually impact the entire human race in some way, should at least be viewed as a thought-provoking subject.
Moreover, the intent here is not to debate in the slightest regarding the authenticity of the Bible.
For purposes of this treatise, it must be presumed that all the words in the Good Book represent
absolute facts. Otherwise, proceeding any further would be useless.
The Book of Genesis tells how God advised Noah to build an Ark, so that each living animal species might be preserved to "start over". Then came the Flood, wiping out all land-based creatures in the known world of that era, except for those aboard the vessel.
What is the theological significance of said event? Simply that the Almighty had become disappointed with how Mankind -- conceived in His own image -- had grown to behave. He elected to eradicate His mistake and offer a second chance in that world sector considered to be the seat of religion.
Therefore God, in His infinite wisdom, carried out a destructive act against His living beings. So what was the result? Did Man wise up and improve upon its ways? We all know the answer to that.
Since taking such a devastating course had accomplished little in the long run, a second gigantic gesture was then made -- this time a most productive one. The Lord begat and placed His own son among the people on earth, as described in the first four books of the New Testament.
There is no need to elaborate on the story about Jesus' life and death. Most of us have already been thoroughly indoctrinated on that score. The important point is the manifold influence wrought by the Son of God. Christianity has become the world's dominant faith, and has affected our life styles, business practices, and laws, often infringing significantly upon those who choose different religious pursuits.
Truly, the coming of Christ indeed proved to be supremely influential. His presence may well be felt for ongoing millennia. Unquestionably, this was the Almighty's most productive act since earth's creation.
Did this master step work? We might say yes, at least in contrast to the Ark bit. Still, would you call Mankind's subsequent performance/behavior pattern to date adequate in respect to God's divine will? Absolutely not, and we see no need to cite the countless whats and whys of our negative response to such question.
We've now reached the stage in this writing where biblical "fact" leaves off and supposition must take over.
Within very recent years, a strange hitherto unknown physical malady has contaminated our population. The medical brains have dubbed it the Acquired Immunity Deficiency Syndrome, or AIDS for short. Only homosexuals and prostitutes were attacked at first, but the effect has since become far more widespread, even among many innocent of unnatural or promiscuous misdeeds.
Some relatively fanatical religious types have rationalized AIDS as a "penalty" imposition upon the less-than-straight-and-true populace. Although initial reaction of a logical-minded person might be to scoff at such theory, a little probing analysis actually tends to support the idea, no matter how ridiculous it may sound right off.
If we look back at the Almighty's two "really big" past acts in dealing with humanity -- one destructive, the other productive -- does it not stand to reason that a selective process has now been put into play? Can we arbitrarily dismiss the thought that God has chosen to inflict punishment on those who offend him, due to their immoral habits? Might placing a death sentence upon those who engage in such practices be of divine origin?
Still, we find a strict affirmative answer rather difficult to offer, on the premise that the innocent are suffering and dying along with the guilty. Many men, women, and children bearing untarnished records must have perished in the Flood. With our presumption of unquestionable fact for the Holy Scriptures, it must stand to reason as well that God Himself is not perfect. The "He who weeps at the fall of a sparrow" reference could be a debatable issue.
Prolonging the conjecture on this last topic seems needless, except to simply add that, taken in isolation, our AIDS thesis could easily be deemed unacceptable. Nevertheless, when viewed in perspective with the two major foregoing events -- provided they are considered factual by the reader -- the idea does appear to have merit.
None of us here today can really prove or disprove either the Ark or the Messiah acts to have occurred as written about. Individual interpretations remain a matter of personal belief. However, the last point we've raised, which may eventually impact the entire human race in some way, should at least be viewed as a thought-provoking subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
