Ever wonder where the differences between regions separate based on culture, philosophy, and principals in the United States/North America?
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Monday, July 2, 2018
Eleven Nations of the USA
Ever wonder where the differences between regions separate based on culture, philosophy, and principals in the United States/North America?
Sunday, May 14, 2017
Batman's secret creator
A Tedtalk about Bill Finger the co-creator of Batman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkDA3nhfMSQ
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Tedtalk - Ron Eglash Fractals at the heart of African design
Ron Eglash talks about how in Africa they have used Fractal design for their villages, art, clothing, and even divination for centuries.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Monday, March 3, 2014
NOVA - BECOMING HUMAN
Nova documentary about how modern Homo Sapiens became what we are. What makes us human?
This video has three parts in one.
Part one, "First Steps" what are the factors that separated us from other great apes.
Part two, "Birth of Humanity" The first humans to look like us.
Part three, "Last Human Standing" What happened to the other humans that lived on the Earth.
This video has three parts in one.
Part one, "First Steps" what are the factors that separated us from other great apes.
Part two, "Birth of Humanity" The first humans to look like us.
Part three, "Last Human Standing" What happened to the other humans that lived on the Earth.
Saturday, February 8, 2014
TED TALKS - DONG WOO JANG The Art of Bow-Making
Dong Woo Jang talks about how he decided one day to make a bow and how that would bring him to discover his own ancestry.
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Park Avenue: Money & The American Dream
Park Avenue: Money & The American Dream. This documentary is basically about how the 1% of the 1% have taken the greater share of the economy and used it to buy politicians, so therefore America. It is also about how they have used their money to make those in the middle class fight on their side to help them keep the greater share and control of America.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Houston we have a problem
Watch this video, if you want to learn about Big Oil, America's hundred year dependency on Hydrocarbons, and the effects of oil on world policies.
The part that explains how Ronald Reagon decimated the oil industry to fight communism was amazing. You never hear Reagonites talk about how Reagan crushed hundreds of thousand of American jobs. Yes it worked but did it hurt Americans, Yes.
50% of electricity comes from COAL, 30% comes from NUCLEAR, 20% from natural GAS.
The part that explains how Ronald Reagon decimated the oil industry to fight communism was amazing. You never hear Reagonites talk about how Reagan crushed hundreds of thousand of American jobs. Yes it worked but did it hurt Americans, Yes.
50% of electricity comes from COAL, 30% comes from NUCLEAR, 20% from natural GAS.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
AGORA
The movie Agora is about the philosopher of Alexandria, Hypatia. I believe she is considered the first female mathematician. She believed in math, philosophy and questioning. She taught in Alexandria, at or near the Library of Alexandria. For a woman in the fourth century that must have been almost impossible. Her story is inspiring but also tragic. The movie is beautiful. I recommend you watch if you like films based on true stories about thinkers, persons of integrity and people of principle.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
The Cartel
I don't understand how someone can defend bad teachers or the system that allows them to stay employed. A Voucher system is the way to go. What are Vouchers? Basically instead of public (tax) money being attached to the school. The public (tax) money is attach to the student. Which mean when you move your child to a different school the funds follow him/her. This has been done in many European school systems for years. It is a logical and better system for all involved, that is except teacher unions and the administrations that syphon off money from children's educations.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
White Guilt or Empathy - Note to Conservatives/Liberals
Conservatives seem to have a number of thoughts in there head about "reverse racism" and other things so I thought I'll weigh in on some of these ideas.
The arguement about blacks being more unemployed and commiting more crimes not being because of Racism, is only partly true. Yes there are many black people who work hard and become employed in belittling to great jobs. However the historical reasons behind that unemployment is easily documented. The reasons are only partly Racial but mostly economical.
Corporations employed many blacks early in the last century because they were cheap labor. Around the 50's they began to leave urban areas for more white surburban, and rural areas, giving jobs to mostly whites. (I'm not saying every corporate head did this cause he was racist, race is only one factor.)
In fact this outsourcing of jobs is the same thing White American is now complaing about because many of those jobs have now gone over seas. (No this does mean I'm saying its not about race, cause Asians haven never been denegrated to the extent as those of African and also Native American heritages). And just like how blacks (a small part of the population) began to use illegal means to suppliment their income. In white neighborhoods all over American, it is has been documented that crime, especially drug distribution, and use, is on the rise.
Saying that, since the 80s it has also been well documented that a young black males caught selling drugs or in possession of drugs with no violence, will most likely be sent to prison. While a young white male selling drugs or in the possession of drugs with no violence is highly more likely to be sent to rehab or placed on probation. I think that explains itself.
The thing about not making white people feel bad. For some reason many think that white or black people should not make fun of white people. No wait they think they should not be able to make white people feel guilty. That seems to be their arguement. Don't make white people feel guilty in your jokes! Well you don't have to look at it as they are feeling guilty. In fact many Liberals don't think it's all guilt. Most of them would say it's mostly Empathy.
They have this crazy idea in there head that America as a whole has had some bad cultural, economical polices in history and some know that has had a bad effect on Black people. I wonder where they get this idea. I already know you will say,
'yeah but that was in the past now "blacks have it great". For some reason conservatives don't seem to think bigots in America don't exist anymore. True they don't have the power they once had politically and culturally before the civil rights act. But all those people didn't just die when the Civil Right bills were past and they didn't all just say "You know, they are right why did I put so much hate on these people, they are ok by me and I'll teach my children and grandchildren the same". So if you want to think that bigotry doesn't still exist look at what I said about young blacks going to jail, while young whites go to rehab (Unless of course it's a privitized prison or juvenile detention center. In the last five years they have been sending far more young white kids to prison, but that's greed.)
Another arguement is don't bunch all white people together. This I would agree with. What ever their origin their are different white people. Some are new to America and don't really understand all of the historical and cultural infigting. So many say, "I and my family had nothing to do with all of that slavery and segregations stuff." But then I would say why are you taking any side at all. You'll say, "Because I'm white." I'll say, "So what." You say all white people shouldn't be lump together but if you weren't lumping yourself with all whites to some degree, the "guilt trip" none of it, would bother you. So you need to figure that out. You would say well other lump me in. I'll say, "Well tell them your family came recently, after all that other stuff. If that isn't enought to deter them they are irrational. Just move on.
Of course then you have people who have been during those dark times. Or their family were there. Their families may even had participated. They say, "yeah but that wasn't me, that was them. Don't blame me from stuff in the past." One of those sins of my father agruments. Of course in the bible the sins of your father did weigh on you as well.
There is a underlining thing to that "guilt" or empathy. If you say that because whites now, had nothing to do with slavery or segregation they shouldn't feel guilt for it. Well that's not actually true, but not only for whites, black should have some guilt but only a small degree, foreigners now citizens should feel some guilt or empathy to a small or great degree(empathy great, guilt small). And anyone else living in America. Why you say? Because you benefit from slavery. Every person living in America does, it doesn't matter how long they or their family have been here, is benefitting off slavery. America wouldn't be the economic powerhouse it is today without slavery. That is a fact.
The idea that because you weren't physically there it should not matter to you or anyone else. Well if I follow that logic completely. You or me or anyone else can't call themselves American. America was created in the American Revolution. So only those that were in the Revolution can be Americans. Of course we don't do this. We, all of us that call ourselves Americans, have benefitted from the acts of those people. From the acts of the people during the Civil War to keep America whole, and from those of War World two that protected it from possibly being conquered.
You can't say well I benefit from those things and they were "positive" (the quotes are because it's war) in history so I'll feel a connection to that but slavery makes me feel things I don't like so I'll say "don't blame me for that." Another example is Native Americans, the conquering and also theft (I say theft when treaties were made and then dishonored, that's not conquering) of Native lands. We are able to live here because of that, but having Empathy or some degree of guilt not just for what was done but how NAs are treated now by America should be felt. People that feel this realize that it wasn't just noble acts but also dishonorable acts that made their comfortable lifes.
Being an American, No matter you Origins, no matter the length you or your family has been American. You benefit from the blood, sweat and tears of all these people. Whether it be noble act or a stain on our history. As an American you have to take the good with the bad, because you are benefitting from them. Whether you like it or not. Only way to change that is to not be or live in America (Why the hell would anyone not want to). So what does it hurt you to have some empathy. The only way the logic works of denying slavery, is if you say nothing in the past affects life now, or makes life now. Which is a ludicrous statement.
The arguement about blacks being more unemployed and commiting more crimes not being because of Racism, is only partly true. Yes there are many black people who work hard and become employed in belittling to great jobs. However the historical reasons behind that unemployment is easily documented. The reasons are only partly Racial but mostly economical.
Corporations employed many blacks early in the last century because they were cheap labor. Around the 50's they began to leave urban areas for more white surburban, and rural areas, giving jobs to mostly whites. (I'm not saying every corporate head did this cause he was racist, race is only one factor.)
In fact this outsourcing of jobs is the same thing White American is now complaing about because many of those jobs have now gone over seas. (No this does mean I'm saying its not about race, cause Asians haven never been denegrated to the extent as those of African and also Native American heritages). And just like how blacks (a small part of the population) began to use illegal means to suppliment their income. In white neighborhoods all over American, it is has been documented that crime, especially drug distribution, and use, is on the rise.
Saying that, since the 80s it has also been well documented that a young black males caught selling drugs or in possession of drugs with no violence, will most likely be sent to prison. While a young white male selling drugs or in the possession of drugs with no violence is highly more likely to be sent to rehab or placed on probation. I think that explains itself.
The thing about not making white people feel bad. For some reason many think that white or black people should not make fun of white people. No wait they think they should not be able to make white people feel guilty. That seems to be their arguement. Don't make white people feel guilty in your jokes! Well you don't have to look at it as they are feeling guilty. In fact many Liberals don't think it's all guilt. Most of them would say it's mostly Empathy.
They have this crazy idea in there head that America as a whole has had some bad cultural, economical polices in history and some know that has had a bad effect on Black people. I wonder where they get this idea. I already know you will say,
'yeah but that was in the past now "blacks have it great". For some reason conservatives don't seem to think bigots in America don't exist anymore. True they don't have the power they once had politically and culturally before the civil rights act. But all those people didn't just die when the Civil Right bills were past and they didn't all just say "You know, they are right why did I put so much hate on these people, they are ok by me and I'll teach my children and grandchildren the same". So if you want to think that bigotry doesn't still exist look at what I said about young blacks going to jail, while young whites go to rehab (Unless of course it's a privitized prison or juvenile detention center. In the last five years they have been sending far more young white kids to prison, but that's greed.)
Another arguement is don't bunch all white people together. This I would agree with. What ever their origin their are different white people. Some are new to America and don't really understand all of the historical and cultural infigting. So many say, "I and my family had nothing to do with all of that slavery and segregations stuff." But then I would say why are you taking any side at all. You'll say, "Because I'm white." I'll say, "So what." You say all white people shouldn't be lump together but if you weren't lumping yourself with all whites to some degree, the "guilt trip" none of it, would bother you. So you need to figure that out. You would say well other lump me in. I'll say, "Well tell them your family came recently, after all that other stuff. If that isn't enought to deter them they are irrational. Just move on.
Of course then you have people who have been during those dark times. Or their family were there. Their families may even had participated. They say, "yeah but that wasn't me, that was them. Don't blame me from stuff in the past." One of those sins of my father agruments. Of course in the bible the sins of your father did weigh on you as well.
There is a underlining thing to that "guilt" or empathy. If you say that because whites now, had nothing to do with slavery or segregation they shouldn't feel guilt for it. Well that's not actually true, but not only for whites, black should have some guilt but only a small degree, foreigners now citizens should feel some guilt or empathy to a small or great degree(empathy great, guilt small). And anyone else living in America. Why you say? Because you benefit from slavery. Every person living in America does, it doesn't matter how long they or their family have been here, is benefitting off slavery. America wouldn't be the economic powerhouse it is today without slavery. That is a fact.
The idea that because you weren't physically there it should not matter to you or anyone else. Well if I follow that logic completely. You or me or anyone else can't call themselves American. America was created in the American Revolution. So only those that were in the Revolution can be Americans. Of course we don't do this. We, all of us that call ourselves Americans, have benefitted from the acts of those people. From the acts of the people during the Civil War to keep America whole, and from those of War World two that protected it from possibly being conquered.
You can't say well I benefit from those things and they were "positive" (the quotes are because it's war) in history so I'll feel a connection to that but slavery makes me feel things I don't like so I'll say "don't blame me for that." Another example is Native Americans, the conquering and also theft (I say theft when treaties were made and then dishonored, that's not conquering) of Native lands. We are able to live here because of that, but having Empathy or some degree of guilt not just for what was done but how NAs are treated now by America should be felt. People that feel this realize that it wasn't just noble acts but also dishonorable acts that made their comfortable lifes.
Being an American, No matter you Origins, no matter the length you or your family has been American. You benefit from the blood, sweat and tears of all these people. Whether it be noble act or a stain on our history. As an American you have to take the good with the bad, because you are benefitting from them. Whether you like it or not. Only way to change that is to not be or live in America (Why the hell would anyone not want to). So what does it hurt you to have some empathy. The only way the logic works of denying slavery, is if you say nothing in the past affects life now, or makes life now. Which is a ludicrous statement.
Friday, July 29, 2011
ABSINTHE
A documentary on the history and present situation of the drink, Absinthe.
For a few years I've been wanting to try this drink. From what I knew of it, I didn't want to drink something that wasn't genuine. I may have to try this Lucid Absinthe.
Oh and sidenote, the American law that says, you can't just call it Absinthe, is ridiculous.
Enjoy.
For a few years I've been wanting to try this drink. From what I knew of it, I didn't want to drink something that wasn't genuine. I may have to try this Lucid Absinthe.
Oh and sidenote, the American law that says, you can't just call it Absinthe, is ridiculous.
Enjoy.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
GasHole
This documentary is about the technologies of gas engines and how we should have better technology now and why we do not. Very interesting film. The beginning is a bit conspiracy driven but the later film is very well done about American's energy policy.
P.S. Standard oil is back it's called Exxon/mobile.
P.S. Standard oil is back it's called Exxon/mobile.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Eric Whitacre Virtual Choir
I was on the TED website and looked at this and had no real idea what it was about. I'm glad I actually watched this. This Virtual or Viral Choir sounds amazing. The first Choir by Eric Whitacre on YouTube has about 200 people soon the second one will come out with over 2,000.
Watch this learn how it came about and see (hear)for yourself. I think projects of this caliber this show what true global internet artist collaboration should be.
After you watch the TEDtalk with Eric Whitacre you can listen to the first Virtual Choir, LUX AURUMQUE.
When they place the next one up I'll add that video as well.
Watch this learn how it came about and see (hear)for yourself. I think projects of this caliber this show what true global internet artist collaboration should be.
After you watch the TEDtalk with Eric Whitacre you can listen to the first Virtual Choir, LUX AURUMQUE.
When they place the next one up I'll add that video as well.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
believing in God
One argument I see over and over between Atheist and Theist is the belief in God. The Atheist gives the impression that if they had proof of God they would know he exist, so then believe. The Theist give the impression that believing in God is automatically knowing he is real. Both are wrong. Knowing something is real doesn't mean you will Believe in it. And Believing in something doesn't mean you know it is real.
For example, I will use the President of the United States, Barack Obama. Not because I thought it was so special he became president... I have Boondocks reaction to that. I use him because many in the world know of him and many in the world believe in him, some both.
In the United States election over 40% of the population, that voted, did not believe in Barack Obama. They voted for McCain, they knew Obama existed but didn't believe in him. While over 50%, that voted, elected Obama because they knew he existed and many would say they Believed in him.
Knowing someone exist is easy, you are simply aware of them. However believing in someone means you have faith or understanding they will do something that will favor you or be pleasing to you or others, and that they have a plan that you accept. Many voted for Obama cause they believe he would be a great leader and bring change to many of the problems facing America. Even though they give way to much credit to the power of the Office he holds
So God... even if many Atheist knew God existed. The truth is they still wouldn't believe in him. For example, let's say God was standing next to you right now (If you're a believer technically you already think this). Now if you're a non-believer you may have questions. If God wanted you to believe in him, you would ask, just as you do any leader, what believing in him would mean for your present and your future? God (let's use the bible God, but this works for any of them) would say these are the rules I have set down, you live by these and your life will be better, just, moral, prosperous and fruitful.
In here, lies the problem with the Theist argument that they believe in God. Most of them don't live by the rules of a being they say is an ALL POWERFUL BEING, that is everywhere and sees everything. So then, when they don't live by such a beings rules, it's hard for me to believe that they truly know that God is real. They may want it to be so, they may believe but if I knew an all powerful being was aware of everything I did at all times and I have told this being that I will serve it or live by its edicts. Seems to me, I would be learning what those edicts are and making it a habit to live by them at all times.
It's like having a boss but you only follow some of his rules when you like them or think they are socially acceptable. What boss would put up with that?
Now for the Atheist, this is also a problem, because let's say this God, that he knows is real. Has policies, rules and a plan that you don't agree with. Should I do as he commands simply because everyone else believes in him and he is All POWERFUL. Or should I do what I know is right, even if it may only be right for me and say no? Because I do not believe in you.
Now obviously most people would do what such a powerful being commands simply out of fear. Hence the term "God-fearing people", so I imagine if God was standing right next to many Atheist they would become active participates quickly, though this activity still doesn't mean they believe in God. They just believe in staying alive, survival against a force far more stronger than they are.
My point is that believing in God is akin to believing in any Leader. And when a Leader puts forth rules of "morality, justice, law, daily life, relationships, spirituality, religion, and community". That leader has to have a vision that the person can believe in. If the person can't, then why would they believe in that Leader?
Now theist would say God has given a perfect vision. However Atheist would say, reading the first half the bible that is simply not true. Now a Christian would say that the second half is what is important now. (Yet they tend to favor some of the rules in the first half. This situation automatically cancels it's own argument.)
Now Jesus as a Leader believed different things than Yahweh did in the beginning of the Bible. Some of the laws of God do work with Jesus' teachings... many do not. One of the confusing things for Atheist is that when many Christians say God, they combine these two entities, making it hard to accept a belief in either cause they contradict each other. God said kill everyone in Jericho, every animal. Yet Jesus said non-violence no matter what, he died to prove that point.
Now I believe when God created his rule do not kill, he meant that the Chosen People were not to kill one another. God had no problem with them killing others. They weren't his people so why would he care. However, people try to tell you that God loves everyone but actions say he loves those that have a covenant with him.
Now Jesus completely contradicts that, a non-violent stance even when A Roman is whipping the skin off of you (thank you, Mel Gibson I will never forget that image, Passion of the Christ) means he loves everyone. One of his fellow Jews comes out of the crowd as he is carrying the cross and says, they would help him they would fight. What does he say, he says, NO! Holy Crap, now if that isn't believing in what you preach I don't know what is. But here is the problem again, an Atheist may say Jesus teaching are great. I can live by the idea of non-violence but I can't believe in God because he doesn't believe in non-violence, and I don't want to believe Jesus is a God or even divine.
So in that instance, an Atheist may follow the philosophy of Christ: helping the poor, non-violence, perhaps even forsaking material wealth, but that doesn't mean they believe in Christ but rather believe that his message was right.
Theist say to Atheist all the time "What if you're wrong?" Honestly, I think A Theist should be far more afraid of God being real than an Atheist. Think about it this way. Say you had a king, and he passed rules of the land. Then one day you and another person came before this king. You bow to him believing him to be your king, and worship him, and praise him every weekend, or when you can. You follow some of his rules but not all. You may even break his rules sometimes, but hey "Nobody is perfect, right?"
Now this other bloke is standing there before this king. However, he doesn't recognize him as his king. He doesn't live by the rules the king set, however many of the rules he does live by are the same. He does not worship, he does not praise and does not pretend to follow this king. If he breaks the Kings rules, it does not matter they are not his rules, however, he may have similar rules that he does live by.
Now they both are before this king. Now this king may punish the non-believer for not accepting his ways when he lives on his lands. This may or may not be just depending on the character, and actions of that individual. However, the king, will and must punish the believer. He has no choice, this person has given a vow, oath whatever it may be that he will live by the king's laws, serve him, and worship him.
Now using the Bible as an example but again this works with most authority entities in history. They don't accept the "We all aren't perfect excuse." That may work among the commoners but that king is going to punish the believer, harshly, and the king is within his right to. You chose that way of life.
In closing believing in a God, a person, or whatever is not the same as knowing it exist. Knowing someone exist does not mean you have to believe in them. One should believe in a God, person, whatever because that being has presently a vision that will do better, and make progress for the person and the community they belong to.
Some of the rules created five thousand years ago still have credence today. After all human behavior hasn't changed that much. However human understanding has changed a great deal since then, and many of the laws of any religion simply do not hold true and should be discarded.
However here is the Greatest problem with this. An Atheist would say, yes let's keep the ones that make sense and rid ourselves of the ones that our new understanding says are not valid.
A believer a true believer cannot do this. In fact, I don't think they should. You see if you believe your all powerful being has given you these rules, then only that all powerful being can change them. If people change them then they are saying by their actions they don't believe. In such a situation compromise is possible.
For a few hundred years there have been many compromises, most gradual changing what many believers believed. It seems now the argument has come to a point where many say that most of the rules of religions should be done away with, including believing in God. On the other side they want to bring back more of the rules, at least in social settings, on a grander scale in politics. Neither argument will be able to succeed.
Atheists let the people believe in their God. Theists do not force the laws of your God, the ones you accept, on others. This simple thing brings balance, that allows for that compromise. Anything else is vanity on both sides.
For example, I will use the President of the United States, Barack Obama. Not because I thought it was so special he became president... I have Boondocks reaction to that. I use him because many in the world know of him and many in the world believe in him, some both.
In the United States election over 40% of the population, that voted, did not believe in Barack Obama. They voted for McCain, they knew Obama existed but didn't believe in him. While over 50%, that voted, elected Obama because they knew he existed and many would say they Believed in him.
Knowing someone exist is easy, you are simply aware of them. However believing in someone means you have faith or understanding they will do something that will favor you or be pleasing to you or others, and that they have a plan that you accept. Many voted for Obama cause they believe he would be a great leader and bring change to many of the problems facing America. Even though they give way to much credit to the power of the Office he holds
So God... even if many Atheist knew God existed. The truth is they still wouldn't believe in him. For example, let's say God was standing next to you right now (If you're a believer technically you already think this). Now if you're a non-believer you may have questions. If God wanted you to believe in him, you would ask, just as you do any leader, what believing in him would mean for your present and your future? God (let's use the bible God, but this works for any of them) would say these are the rules I have set down, you live by these and your life will be better, just, moral, prosperous and fruitful.
In here, lies the problem with the Theist argument that they believe in God. Most of them don't live by the rules of a being they say is an ALL POWERFUL BEING, that is everywhere and sees everything. So then, when they don't live by such a beings rules, it's hard for me to believe that they truly know that God is real. They may want it to be so, they may believe but if I knew an all powerful being was aware of everything I did at all times and I have told this being that I will serve it or live by its edicts. Seems to me, I would be learning what those edicts are and making it a habit to live by them at all times.
It's like having a boss but you only follow some of his rules when you like them or think they are socially acceptable. What boss would put up with that?
Now for the Atheist, this is also a problem, because let's say this God, that he knows is real. Has policies, rules and a plan that you don't agree with. Should I do as he commands simply because everyone else believes in him and he is All POWERFUL. Or should I do what I know is right, even if it may only be right for me and say no? Because I do not believe in you.
Now obviously most people would do what such a powerful being commands simply out of fear. Hence the term "God-fearing people", so I imagine if God was standing right next to many Atheist they would become active participates quickly, though this activity still doesn't mean they believe in God. They just believe in staying alive, survival against a force far more stronger than they are.
My point is that believing in God is akin to believing in any Leader. And when a Leader puts forth rules of "morality, justice, law, daily life, relationships, spirituality, religion, and community". That leader has to have a vision that the person can believe in. If the person can't, then why would they believe in that Leader?
Now theist would say God has given a perfect vision. However Atheist would say, reading the first half the bible that is simply not true. Now a Christian would say that the second half is what is important now. (Yet they tend to favor some of the rules in the first half. This situation automatically cancels it's own argument.)
Now Jesus as a Leader believed different things than Yahweh did in the beginning of the Bible. Some of the laws of God do work with Jesus' teachings... many do not. One of the confusing things for Atheist is that when many Christians say God, they combine these two entities, making it hard to accept a belief in either cause they contradict each other. God said kill everyone in Jericho, every animal. Yet Jesus said non-violence no matter what, he died to prove that point.
Now I believe when God created his rule do not kill, he meant that the Chosen People were not to kill one another. God had no problem with them killing others. They weren't his people so why would he care. However, people try to tell you that God loves everyone but actions say he loves those that have a covenant with him.
Now Jesus completely contradicts that, a non-violent stance even when A Roman is whipping the skin off of you (thank you, Mel Gibson I will never forget that image, Passion of the Christ) means he loves everyone. One of his fellow Jews comes out of the crowd as he is carrying the cross and says, they would help him they would fight. What does he say, he says, NO! Holy Crap, now if that isn't believing in what you preach I don't know what is. But here is the problem again, an Atheist may say Jesus teaching are great. I can live by the idea of non-violence but I can't believe in God because he doesn't believe in non-violence, and I don't want to believe Jesus is a God or even divine.
So in that instance, an Atheist may follow the philosophy of Christ: helping the poor, non-violence, perhaps even forsaking material wealth, but that doesn't mean they believe in Christ but rather believe that his message was right.
Theist say to Atheist all the time "What if you're wrong?" Honestly, I think A Theist should be far more afraid of God being real than an Atheist. Think about it this way. Say you had a king, and he passed rules of the land. Then one day you and another person came before this king. You bow to him believing him to be your king, and worship him, and praise him every weekend, or when you can. You follow some of his rules but not all. You may even break his rules sometimes, but hey "Nobody is perfect, right?"
Now this other bloke is standing there before this king. However, he doesn't recognize him as his king. He doesn't live by the rules the king set, however many of the rules he does live by are the same. He does not worship, he does not praise and does not pretend to follow this king. If he breaks the Kings rules, it does not matter they are not his rules, however, he may have similar rules that he does live by.
Now they both are before this king. Now this king may punish the non-believer for not accepting his ways when he lives on his lands. This may or may not be just depending on the character, and actions of that individual. However, the king, will and must punish the believer. He has no choice, this person has given a vow, oath whatever it may be that he will live by the king's laws, serve him, and worship him.
Now using the Bible as an example but again this works with most authority entities in history. They don't accept the "We all aren't perfect excuse." That may work among the commoners but that king is going to punish the believer, harshly, and the king is within his right to. You chose that way of life.
In closing believing in a God, a person, or whatever is not the same as knowing it exist. Knowing someone exist does not mean you have to believe in them. One should believe in a God, person, whatever because that being has presently a vision that will do better, and make progress for the person and the community they belong to.
Some of the rules created five thousand years ago still have credence today. After all human behavior hasn't changed that much. However human understanding has changed a great deal since then, and many of the laws of any religion simply do not hold true and should be discarded.
However here is the Greatest problem with this. An Atheist would say, yes let's keep the ones that make sense and rid ourselves of the ones that our new understanding says are not valid.
A believer a true believer cannot do this. In fact, I don't think they should. You see if you believe your all powerful being has given you these rules, then only that all powerful being can change them. If people change them then they are saying by their actions they don't believe. In such a situation compromise is possible.
For a few hundred years there have been many compromises, most gradual changing what many believers believed. It seems now the argument has come to a point where many say that most of the rules of religions should be done away with, including believing in God. On the other side they want to bring back more of the rules, at least in social settings, on a grander scale in politics. Neither argument will be able to succeed.
Atheists let the people believe in their God. Theists do not force the laws of your God, the ones you accept, on others. This simple thing brings balance, that allows for that compromise. Anything else is vanity on both sides.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
IP MAN the movie
This movies is bad ass. If you like good movies, and especially good martial arts movies this is for you. I love how they show Wing Chun in this film. For those that don't know Wing Chun is a martial art that was created by a woman. She created a style to defeat larger stronger opponents. The basics are use of skeletal frame, simultaneous attack and defend, short precise attacks, counter attacks and leverage.
The movie isn't historically accurate. However Ip Man was Bruce Lee martial instructor. The movie is about having dignity no matter your circumstance but also allowing others to retain their dignity even when you are superior. That is a continuing theme in many martial arts films. Give respect and you get respect.
There are other Ip Man movies a part 2 and a part 3.
Also there is a Chinese TV series called Wing Chun that I found very enjoyable, with Sammo Hung, (who is in Ip Man 2).
fast forward to 5:58 mark for fight scene.
The movie isn't historically accurate. However Ip Man was Bruce Lee martial instructor. The movie is about having dignity no matter your circumstance but also allowing others to retain their dignity even when you are superior. That is a continuing theme in many martial arts films. Give respect and you get respect.
There are other Ip Man movies a part 2 and a part 3.
Also there is a Chinese TV series called Wing Chun that I found very enjoyable, with Sammo Hung, (who is in Ip Man 2).
fast forward to 5:58 mark for fight scene.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)