I was staggered to read in the Weekend Australian (26/27 September 2009) that a group of fifteen Christian denominations are about to launch a $1.5 million campaign to ‘promote’ Jesus.
Isn’t Jesus the ‘Son of God’, the creator of all that exists? Why does he need to be promoted? It seems a bit presumptuous – for us, human beings that God created, to ‘promote’ our creator. Anyway Jesus is not a ‘commodity’; Jesus is not a product. Jesus does not sell anything. Neither should Christianity. Didn’t Jesus condemn the money changers operating out of the synagogues (the ‘churches’ of his time)? So what are these people trying to do? Are their congregations diminishing; are their church coffers nearly empty and they are tired of scraping the barrel and need to recruit more members? The trouble is a belief, a faith, cannot be ‘sold’. It is not a one size fits all thing. The very fact that there are fifteen, out of God knows how many Christian denominations and faith based groups, emphasises my point. Everyone has their own interpretation of the central message that Jesus tried to pass on to his followers.
Now I have no desire to become involved in any discussions about religion (they inevitably become acrimonious) because as I said before, it is a very personal thing, and we all have our own interpretations on what it all means and how it affects us. But to me, and this is my own interpretation of what the central message is, has been quite plainly given to us by Jesus (and I paraphrase here using language from the King James translation):
• Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind and with all thy soul.
• Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
• Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
If one could follow and live by those three basic tenets or ‘commandments’ then I believe one would lead a ‘good’ life and die a contented and peaceful person. Apart from this I have never understood one of Christianity’s beliefs – that we should put all our individual problems on to the shoulders of one ‘person’ – Jesus.
To me Jesus is the intermediary between us humans and God. As humans, with our mental cognitive limitations, we are incapable of comprehending the total Majesty of the Creator of all. I think the best ‘description’ I have ever read of this Majesty is in the Bhagavad-Gita (I quote from Chapter 10, and selectively from verses 20 to 34):
“... I am the Self, seated in the hearts of all beings; I am the beginning and the life, and am the end of them all.
Of all creative Powers I am the Creator, of luminaries the Sun; the Whirlwind among the winds, and the Moon among planets....
I am the King-python among snakes, I am the Aqueous Principle among those that live in water, I am the Father of fathers, and among rulers I am Death....
I am the Beginning, the Middle and the End in creation; among sciences I am the science of Spirituality; I am the Discussion among disputants....
Of letters I am A; I am the copulative in compound words; I am Time inexhaustible; I am the all-pervading Preserver.
I am all-devouring Death; I am the Origin of all that shall happen; I am Fame, Fortune, Speech , Memory, Intellect, Constancy and Forgiveness...
I am the Seed of all being; ... no creature moving or unmoving can live without Me.
Whatever is glorious, excellent, beautiful and mighty, be assured that it comes from a fragment of my Splendour.
... I sustain this universe with only a small part of Myself.”
We just cannot comprehend all this so we need someone, a figure, an intermediary between God and us; we need something to focus on; that we can look up to and aspire to emulate, such as Jesus, or Mohamed, or Krishna, or the Buddha that will show us the path to follow.
Does this need promoting? I don’t think so.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Suicide!
Why is it that in all western countries suicide is considered either as a crime or that the person concerned is mentally deranged? Suicide is the result of a choice someone has made. Now I am neither promoting suicide, nor do I personally agree that is ever necessary to take your own life – but then I have never found myself in a situation which would lead me to believe that continued living was not worth while. I have never been in a situation where I had to make a choice between possibly stark alternatives; living under what are perceived to be intolerable conditions or taking my own life. Maybe if I was I would think differently.
Regardless, however, of a person’s views on life, why is suicide considered a crime or as the result of a mental problem? First up I believe many Christians will say it is selfish and against God’s will. How do they know this for a fact? Didn’t God give us free will? Free will, as I understand it, means that we can make up our own minds. Surely God would not, on one hand, give us free will and then on the other hand restrict our free will by ‘saying’ that we can’t do this or that? That is being hypocritical and I cannot believe that God is a hypocrite.
Anyway, how do we know what God actually said? Or how he said it? I believe the religious argument goes something like this – God gave us life, it is therefore not up to us to end it as we can have no idea, in the big picture, of the consequences or outcomes of someone ‘prematurely’ taking their own life. We are not supposed to try to double guess God’s plan.
I would counter this argument by saying that, if it is agreed that God did give us free will, is it not possible that someone’s suicide may be part of His plan? We just don’t know and I believe that continued discussion, based on religious ideals is fraught and likely never to be resolved.
Also it is a matter of degree, even semantics. I am not sure of the chapter or verse in the Bible, but somewhere it says (more or less), “Greater love hath no man than this; that he should lay down his life for another”. In English folk lore the self-sacrifice of Capt. ‘Titus’ Oates (a member of Capt Scott’s ill-fated1912 Antarctic expedition), when he walked out into a blizzard after uttering the famous words, ‘I may be some time’, is considered a ‘noble’, selfless act. He laid down his life so that the others might have a better chance of surviving. It may have been a ‘noble’ act yet it was still suicide!
And then how about those who cannot face life and get drunk every night, to hide their pain and anguish, thus drinking themselves to death. Their death might take 10 or 20 years to accomplish, so it is slow – but surely this is still suicide? This slow death is tolerated by our society even though those concerned (rather obviously) may have no real desire to live.
Then there is the argument that those who either attempt suicide or are actually successful must be mentally deranged. Those who follow this line of thought suggest that anyone who cannot appreciate the beauty of the world and cannot see their individual purpose in the great scheme of things must be mentally unstable. Well I have news for them! The last figures I saw, from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, suggest that about 1 in 5 Australians (19% actually) suffers some degree of mental instability sometime in their life. These figures are similar to those for most Western, developed countries.
So either the diagnosis of ‘mental’ problems is suspect or there are a great many very unhappy people in the world. I suspect that the diagnosis of ‘mental’ problems is the ‘problem’. This is why I am studying psychology – I want to find out for myself where the ‘problem’ lies.
Of course there is another view (the sociological view) that goes something like this; that suicide represents a loosening of social bonding; that suicide is an indicator of society’s potential disintegration and therefore must be prevented, opposed and resisted at all costs. This where I believe the criminal element has come from.
To get back to my original proposition – that suicide is a choice – and no one, repeat, no one, can tell a person how they should react to an event or circumstance in their life. I personally don’t think I would ever commit suicide (famous last words!!) because I firmly believe that every problem has a solution; maybe not the solution, or outcome that is wished for or desired, but a solution none-the-less. To me someone who either commits suicide or tries to is neither a criminal nor mentally deranged, but just someone who is finding it difficult to cope with their present circumstances and is crying out for help.
All suicide is neither a criminal act nor is it the result of mental derangement and all ‘prevention’ efforts should be directed at alleviating and addressing this cry for help.
Regardless, however, of a person’s views on life, why is suicide considered a crime or as the result of a mental problem? First up I believe many Christians will say it is selfish and against God’s will. How do they know this for a fact? Didn’t God give us free will? Free will, as I understand it, means that we can make up our own minds. Surely God would not, on one hand, give us free will and then on the other hand restrict our free will by ‘saying’ that we can’t do this or that? That is being hypocritical and I cannot believe that God is a hypocrite.
Anyway, how do we know what God actually said? Or how he said it? I believe the religious argument goes something like this – God gave us life, it is therefore not up to us to end it as we can have no idea, in the big picture, of the consequences or outcomes of someone ‘prematurely’ taking their own life. We are not supposed to try to double guess God’s plan.
I would counter this argument by saying that, if it is agreed that God did give us free will, is it not possible that someone’s suicide may be part of His plan? We just don’t know and I believe that continued discussion, based on religious ideals is fraught and likely never to be resolved.
Also it is a matter of degree, even semantics. I am not sure of the chapter or verse in the Bible, but somewhere it says (more or less), “Greater love hath no man than this; that he should lay down his life for another”. In English folk lore the self-sacrifice of Capt. ‘Titus’ Oates (a member of Capt Scott’s ill-fated1912 Antarctic expedition), when he walked out into a blizzard after uttering the famous words, ‘I may be some time’, is considered a ‘noble’, selfless act. He laid down his life so that the others might have a better chance of surviving. It may have been a ‘noble’ act yet it was still suicide!
And then how about those who cannot face life and get drunk every night, to hide their pain and anguish, thus drinking themselves to death. Their death might take 10 or 20 years to accomplish, so it is slow – but surely this is still suicide? This slow death is tolerated by our society even though those concerned (rather obviously) may have no real desire to live.
Then there is the argument that those who either attempt suicide or are actually successful must be mentally deranged. Those who follow this line of thought suggest that anyone who cannot appreciate the beauty of the world and cannot see their individual purpose in the great scheme of things must be mentally unstable. Well I have news for them! The last figures I saw, from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, suggest that about 1 in 5 Australians (19% actually) suffers some degree of mental instability sometime in their life. These figures are similar to those for most Western, developed countries.
So either the diagnosis of ‘mental’ problems is suspect or there are a great many very unhappy people in the world. I suspect that the diagnosis of ‘mental’ problems is the ‘problem’. This is why I am studying psychology – I want to find out for myself where the ‘problem’ lies.
Of course there is another view (the sociological view) that goes something like this; that suicide represents a loosening of social bonding; that suicide is an indicator of society’s potential disintegration and therefore must be prevented, opposed and resisted at all costs. This where I believe the criminal element has come from.
To get back to my original proposition – that suicide is a choice – and no one, repeat, no one, can tell a person how they should react to an event or circumstance in their life. I personally don’t think I would ever commit suicide (famous last words!!) because I firmly believe that every problem has a solution; maybe not the solution, or outcome that is wished for or desired, but a solution none-the-less. To me someone who either commits suicide or tries to is neither a criminal nor mentally deranged, but just someone who is finding it difficult to cope with their present circumstances and is crying out for help.
All suicide is neither a criminal act nor is it the result of mental derangement and all ‘prevention’ efforts should be directed at alleviating and addressing this cry for help.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
The word 'gay'
The word ‘gay’ is a perfectly good English word meaning a person who is carefree, happy and light-hearted and has been used in poetry and song. In earlier days it has no connection at all with homosexuality or lesbianism. I will admit it is an irritation to me that I can no longer use the word ‘gay’ in its original sense (I would not use it very often, but it is a useful word to have around). I mean if I had to say to my wife or friends that “Today I am feeling gay”, they would make some rude or disparaging comment about my sexual orientation. And yet I could quite legitimately say that – meaning I am feeling carefree, happy and light-hearted - which is a wonderful feeling.
Apparently round about the 1950s (according to my ‘ word bible’ the Oxford English Dictionary) things changed and the word ‘morphed’ into meaning what it does now – with homosexual connotations. The way these things happen is very mysterious.
This all came to my mind as, out of the blue (which frequently happens to me), I recalled that the British Royal Navy, in the 1950s, named some experimental Motor Gun Boats with the word ‘Gay’ as part of their name. One I seem to remember was called the “Gay Bombardier”. These were experimental in that they were the first (and possibly the last) boats to run entirely with gas turbine engines. They were very fast and, before the age of guided missiles, relatively heavily armed.
How things have changed! No one, today, would dream of calling a war ship ‘gay’ would they? I mean, Jeez, what is the world coming too?
Apparently round about the 1950s (according to my ‘ word bible’ the Oxford English Dictionary) things changed and the word ‘morphed’ into meaning what it does now – with homosexual connotations. The way these things happen is very mysterious.
This all came to my mind as, out of the blue (which frequently happens to me), I recalled that the British Royal Navy, in the 1950s, named some experimental Motor Gun Boats with the word ‘Gay’ as part of their name. One I seem to remember was called the “Gay Bombardier”. These were experimental in that they were the first (and possibly the last) boats to run entirely with gas turbine engines. They were very fast and, before the age of guided missiles, relatively heavily armed.
How things have changed! No one, today, would dream of calling a war ship ‘gay’ would they? I mean, Jeez, what is the world coming too?
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Charity begins at home!
Charity, they tell us, begins at home. This is the Christian ideal and the various religious institutions promote this. For instance the church my wife attends has recently asked for contributions from the congregation to fill shoe boxes for needy children in Africa. A splendid cause you say, and so it is. The idea is to give a Christmas present to some child in Somalia, or wherever, and to give them some hope that someone, somewhere, actually cares about them.
But how about the ‘needy’ children in our own backyard? In Australia, a very wealthy country, we are in the midst of a highly controversial ‘intervention’ programme designed with the aim of improving the health and social well being of the Aboriginal communities in the outback – principally in the Northern Territory.(Even the word ‘intervention’ smacks of paternalism, doesn’t it?). By any measure the Aboriginal has been poorly treated over the generations of ‘white’ rule from Canberra. Their health standards are Third World as are their living conditions and, almost without exception, the communities they live in are dependent on government welfare payments. Yet they have no running water, limited access to electricity and no sewage and waste facilities, very limited health services and no education facilities to speak of. How can there be any confidence, from anyone, that without consultation with those concerned (i.e. the communities themselves) that their lot will ‘improve’ and to redress many of the wrongs, both actual and perceived, that occurred in the past, some of which are still occurring now?
No wonder the incidence of substance abuse, violence, self harm and suicide are amongst the worst in the world – and this in a developed G20 country. There are variously considered to be about 400 000 Aboriginals in Australia out of a total population of some 21 million. And yet to help these people – our people, who have live here for over 40 000 years – requires ‘intervention’ from all the Federal Governments agencies even including the military!
An ‘intervention’ is all very well in principle but what is it actually doing to ‘help’ the people involved? Many questions remain unanswered. For instance will the intervention restore confidence and self esteem? Will it promote acceptance by mainstream Australia or does it further relegate them to continuing marginalisation? Will it help to restore some semblance of pride in tribal culture, language, oral history, traditions and their association with the land and their place in the world? Above all does give it give individuals any hope for the future? Will the intervention bring about any sense of ‘belonging’ so essential for general wellbeing? Will it alleviate the feeling of rejection from main stream Australia?
Bureaucrats, divorced as they are from people in general and from the land, do not have a good record in this area, so I have grave doubts that any lasting good will come from this intervention.
And yet my wife’s church leaders are asking for contributions to bring cheer to the ‘underprivileged’ in other countries?
As I said at the beginning, charity begins at home.
But how about the ‘needy’ children in our own backyard? In Australia, a very wealthy country, we are in the midst of a highly controversial ‘intervention’ programme designed with the aim of improving the health and social well being of the Aboriginal communities in the outback – principally in the Northern Territory.(Even the word ‘intervention’ smacks of paternalism, doesn’t it?). By any measure the Aboriginal has been poorly treated over the generations of ‘white’ rule from Canberra. Their health standards are Third World as are their living conditions and, almost without exception, the communities they live in are dependent on government welfare payments. Yet they have no running water, limited access to electricity and no sewage and waste facilities, very limited health services and no education facilities to speak of. How can there be any confidence, from anyone, that without consultation with those concerned (i.e. the communities themselves) that their lot will ‘improve’ and to redress many of the wrongs, both actual and perceived, that occurred in the past, some of which are still occurring now?
No wonder the incidence of substance abuse, violence, self harm and suicide are amongst the worst in the world – and this in a developed G20 country. There are variously considered to be about 400 000 Aboriginals in Australia out of a total population of some 21 million. And yet to help these people – our people, who have live here for over 40 000 years – requires ‘intervention’ from all the Federal Governments agencies even including the military!
An ‘intervention’ is all very well in principle but what is it actually doing to ‘help’ the people involved? Many questions remain unanswered. For instance will the intervention restore confidence and self esteem? Will it promote acceptance by mainstream Australia or does it further relegate them to continuing marginalisation? Will it help to restore some semblance of pride in tribal culture, language, oral history, traditions and their association with the land and their place in the world? Above all does give it give individuals any hope for the future? Will the intervention bring about any sense of ‘belonging’ so essential for general wellbeing? Will it alleviate the feeling of rejection from main stream Australia?
Bureaucrats, divorced as they are from people in general and from the land, do not have a good record in this area, so I have grave doubts that any lasting good will come from this intervention.
And yet my wife’s church leaders are asking for contributions to bring cheer to the ‘underprivileged’ in other countries?
As I said at the beginning, charity begins at home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)