Jesus from the Stars

November 27, 2013 at 3:09 pm | Posted in Culture Wars, Religion | Leave a comment

Christians often assume that their truth – the truth taught in the Bible – is universal truth.  I’ve wondered what would happen if some alien race came to earth and started spreading their religion and it turned out to be exactly the same as Christian dogma, except all the names were different.  Because on Planet X, there is no Bethlehem, so Jesus couldn’t have been born there.  The name “Jesus” would have no meaning in their language, so he would have undoubtedly been named something completely alien sounding.  No Italy, so no Rome, so no Roman governor, so no Pilate to order Jesus’s crucifixion.  For that matter, no crucifixion because who knows what kind of torturous death the inhabitants of ancient Planet X used on their incarnations of God.

So, most of the symbology of Christian teaching would be lost.  But, if the truth’s Jesus taught are truly universal, then  this otherworldly savior would also have to preach them to his followers.  Right?

Now, imagine the inhabitants of Planet X come to Earth (or we go to Planet X), and we start sharing our stories.  Do you think we’d be smart enough to figure out that God took mortal form on both planets?  Sadly, I don’t think we would.  Our minds would be too fixated on the symbolism of the religion, and not on the teachings of the savior.  And that’s assuming the inhabitants of Planet X share similar values to ours.  There are an infinite number of possible differences that would completely up-end our understanding of Jesus’ teachings.  Most of the parables become meaningless jibberish when removed from their cultural underpinnings.  We only barely understand the parable of the Good Samaritan today, and we share the same DNA as the Samaritans.

So, then next time you find yourself proselytizing, just try to keep Planet X in mind.  You might actually get farther.

Nook U Lar

November 20, 2013 at 2:20 pm | Posted in Military, Politics | Leave a comment
Tags: ,

I’m afraid I don’t understand why Iran can’t have nukes when other developed countries can.  More than that, I don’t understand what gives us the right to say that someone else shouldn’t have nukes?  What country has actually used nukes on another country?  Who has the 2nd largest nuclear stockpile in the world?  Who has tested the most nuclear weapons?  Who spends the most of “defense?”

To be clear, I don’t want Iran to have nukes.  And I understand the logic of using our considerable economic and diplomatic power to dissuade Iran, and other countries like them, from developing nuclear weapons.  But it seems to me that we should not be taking point on this issue.  We should let our like-minded allies and friends be the one’s doing the talking.  Great Britain doesn’t want Iran to have nukes, great!  We support Great Britain’s position and will back their policy.

By leading the drive to prevent others from using nukes, it seems we actually make that drive less likely to succeed.  We, and those who follow our lead, come off as hypocrites.  Better instead to let Switzerland – or someone like them –  lead the charge, and we stand behind them, backing their policy.  If our goal is to prevent nuclear proliferation, then the quiet man in the background is probably a better position.

There seems to be this idea that the United States has to lead everything.  In some cases it’s best to let others lead.  Iranian nuclear armament is one of those instances.

Measures

November 14, 2013 at 9:58 am | Posted in communications, Society | Leave a comment

The other day I ran across the aphorism “We measure what is important to us.”  I’d seen this old saw before, and it has always caused my brow to furrow.  Do we measure what is important to us?  Really?  After giving the matter (too) much thought, I came to the conclusion that we don’t measure what is important to us.  Instead, we measure what is important to others.  

When you look at it, what’s the purpose of measuring something?  If you ask your grandmother (or great grandmother) for her famous carrot cake recipe there’s a good chance the recipe will include a “pinch” of cinnamon or a “dash” of salt.  Gramma knows exactly how much salt to put in the cake, it’s only when she needs to share that information with someone else that it become necessary to use a precise mechanism for measurement.  Shared standards become important, but for gramma, a pinch and a dash works just fine.

We measure things in order to communicate information to other people, not necessarily because we think it’s important, but because we are trying to get an accurate representation of our “carrot cake.”  What’s more, the carrot cake isn’t even important to gramma.  It’s important to the person who has asked for the recipe.   In business what matters to us is our personal success.  Ideally we’re able to tie our personal success to the company’s success, but in the end we’ll leave the company if our personal success is heading in one direction and the company’s is heading in another.  So, in business, we measure what is important to those who impact our personal success.  In other words, if your boss wants the carrot cake recipe, you give it to her using measurements you both can understand.

When we get down to it, what’s important to us as individuals doesn’t have to be measured.  We know what’s important.  Right or wrong we place value on things and tasks based on our personal experience and choices.  A mother doesn’t evaluate her children – she simply loves them.  A man of faith doesn’t measure his devotion on some scale of righteousness, he simply lives in accordance with his values.   But what’s interesting is when we try to provide these measurements to other people.  Because invariably, we fail.  Don’t believe me?  Try it yourself.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.